me  L  •  etcticii 


(/O 


^£,:^«/X. 

'  JL    P  *    L'      O/ 
tt/ro    cduLfAXsnjrn'   ill 

•/ 


ffi       f  '" 
iQ    &&  &fi*J*3  cotrLisn 


(AK.SL^^MT.ff'^i-     (TV    //I A,    a 

'/  /»       /  p       I  . '/  if 

'XL,  (sLfriA&A,    Coon/yr  off  fftt 


*-<£  hwmwti   flniuiy 


<rr  flMnwt 

'  - 


A  PRIVY  COUNCIL  COMMITTEE  MEETING 

Note  the  milled  of  f5grn3fiAg|appeals.     Appeals  from  Virginia  and  Minorca  were 
'also  disposed  of  at  this  meeting 
'l,  Register,  "George  II,"  vol.  XH,  4$6~\ 


AMERICAN 
COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

1696-1765 

A  study  of  the  British  Board  of  Trade  in 

its  relation  to  the  American  Colonies, 

Political,  Industrial,  Administrative 


BY 


OLIVER  MORTON  DICKERSON,  PH.D. 

Professor  of  History,    Western  Illinois  State  Normal  Sctiool 


A  thesis  submitted  in  partial  fulfillment  of  the  require 
ments  for  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy  in  History 
in  the  Graduate  School  of  the  University  of  Illinois 


CLEVELAND,  OHIO 

THE   ARTHUR    H.    CLARK    COMPANY 
1912 


COPYRIGHT,    1912,  BY 

OLIVER  MORTON 


CONTENTS 

PREFACE  .  .  .  .  .  .  .11 

I  ORGANIZATION  AND  PERSONNEL  OF  THE  BOARD  OF  TRADE       17 

Colonial  administration  prior  to  1696 

Organization  of  the  Board  of  Trade 

The  personnel  of  the  Board 

Political  position  and  terms  of  service  of  members 

Periods  of  varying  activity 

Office  force 

II  RELATIONS  OF  THE  BOARD  OF  TRADE  TO  OTHER  DEPART 

MENTS   OF   ADMINISTRATION         .  .  .  8 1 

The  Privy  Council  and  its  committees 

The  secretary  of  state  and  executive  boards 

The  administrative  boards 

The  Bishop  of  London 

Parliament 

III  DIFFICULTIES  OF  COLONIAL  ADMINISTRATION      .  .     133 

Communications 

Lack  of  responsibility 

Weakness  of  the  governor's  position 

The  rise  of  the  assembly 

IV  THE  IMPERIALISTIC  POLICY  OF  THE  BOARD  OF  TRADE      .     181 

The  question  of  a  fixed  civil  list 
Control  of  the  judiciary 
Plans  of  union 

V  TREATMENT  OF  COLONIAL  LEGISLATION  .  .  .    225 

The  royal  veto 
Methods  of  disallowance 
Appeals  to  the  king  in  council 
Complaints 


240052 


8  AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

VI  BOUNDARIES,  TRADE,  DEFENSE,  AND  INDIAN  AFFAIRS      .     285 

Boundary  disputes 

Trade  relations 

Defense 

Indian  relations 
RESUME  .  .  .'  .  .  .  .    357 

BIBLIOGRAPHY  .......     367 

INDEX  ........     379 


ILLUSTRATIONS 

A  PRIVY  COUNCIL  COMMITTEE  MEETING,  FEB.  9,  1749  Frontispiece 
FACSIMILE   OF   LETTER  FROM   BEDFORD  TO  THE   DUKE  OF 

NEWCASTLE  (three  plates)  .  .  .  .41-45 

HALIFAX  RESIGNS  THE  PRESIDENCY  .  .  .  .51 

A  PRIVY  COUNCIL  COMMITTEE  MEETING,  OCT.  14,  1729     .         97 


PREFACE 

The  period  covered  by  this  volume,  1696-1765,  is 
one  of  the  most  important  in  the  growth  of  the  Amer 
ican  nation.  It  was  during  this  period  that  the  orig 
inal  colonies  developed  their  traditions  of  political 
liberty,  and  acquired  by  steady  encroachments  on  the 
part  of  the  assemblies  practically  complete  self-gov 
ernment.  The  year  1700  found  the  colonies  outside 
of  New  England  weak  dependencies  under  the  direct 
control  of  the  crown  or  of  proprietors :  in  each  colony 
an  appointed  council  exercised  the  full  legislative 
powers  of  an  upper  house,  an  appointed  governor  held 
the  executive  power  unlimited  by  any  written  consti 
tution,  the  elected  lower  house  was  timid  and  inex 
perienced.  By  1765  the  councils  had  been  robbed  of 
their  chief  legislative  powers,  judges  and  other  officers 
had  become  dependent  upon  the  lower  house,  and  the 
governors  had  been  reduced  to  inefficient  figureheads, 
dependent  upon  the  assemblies  for  their  daily  bread, 
and  impotent  to  obey  the  orders  they  received  from 
England.  There  are  few  stories  more  fascinating 
than  the  account  of  this  gradual  subversion  of  the  old 
colonial  constitution  by  our  stubborn  forefathers,  and 
the  substitution  in  its  place  of  a  government  which 
could  be  controlled  independent  of  the  mother  coun 
try.  On  account  of  the  steady  evolution  which  was 
taking  place,  no  period  affords  a  better  opportunity 
than  this  to  study  British  colonial  administration  in 


12         AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

action,  nor  is  the  study  of  any  other  period  likely  to 
throw  more  light  upon  the  origin  of  political  institu 
tions  which  are  peculiarly  American. 

The  Board  of  Trade  was  the  department  of  the 
British  government  which,  during  this  period,  was 
officially  charged  with  colonial  affairs  and  which 
united  the  colonies  administratively  with  the  rest  of 
the  empire.  It  was  constantly  in  touch  with  the 
various  plantations,  learning  their  special  needs,  con 
sidering  their  grievances,  advising  their  officers,  en 
couraging  their  development,  and  examining  and 
criticising  their  laws.  It  is  difficult  to  estimate  the 
influence  which  the  Board  of  Trade  exerted  upon 
American  history  because  it  touched  so  many  things 
and  yet  did  its  work  so  quietly;  but  beyond  question 
it  played  a  most  important  part  in  shaping  colonial 
institutions  at  a  time  when  they  were  most  susceptible. 
Notwithstanding  the  close  relations  between  this  bu 
reau  and  the  colonies,  and  regardless  of  the  fact  that 
its  records  comprise  the  most  important  single  collec 
tion  of  manuscript  material  in  existence  for  a  study 
of  early  American  history,  the  Board  of  Trade  has 
hitherto  received  but  scant  notice  and  the  story  of  its 
activities  has  remained  untold.  This  has  left  a  serious 
gap  in  the  literature  of  American  history.  How  the 
colonial  office  was  organized,  its  plans,  its  success  in 
carrying  them  into  operation,  its  methods  of  handling 
colonial  business,  and  the  difficulties  it  encountered 
should  be  known.  This  volume  is  intended  to  supply 
that  information. 

The  theme  of  this  book  is  definitely  stated  in  its 
title.  It  is  a  study  of  the  British  Board  of  Trade  and 


PREFACE  13 


the  machinery  of  imperial  control:  what  it  was,  the 
men  who  directed  it,  their  ideas  of  the  relations  of 
the  mother  country  to  the  colonies,  the  relations  of 
the  colonial  office  to  other  branches  of  the  govern 
ment,  and  the  conditions  under  which  colonial  affairs 
were  administered.  The  study  has  inevitably  included 
economic  and  industrial  questions;  transportation, 
money,  and  means  of  communication  profoundly  af 
fected  administration  in  the  colonies  and  have  been 
discussed  from  that  point  of  view.  Some  of  the  lar 
ger  questions  of  colonial  policy,  such  as  boundaries, 
the  westward  movement  of  population  and  the  attitude 
of  the  British  government  towards  it,  Indian  relations 
and  Indian  problems,  and  commercial  and  trade  poli 
cies,  have  been  discussed  at  considerable  length.  ^A 
special  effort  has  been  made  to  trace  the  development 
of  the  Board  of  Trade's  imperial  ideas  and  its  schemes 
for  making  colonial  government  more  effective,  and 
to  determine  how  successful  these  plans  were  in  oper 
ation. 

it  has  been  impossible  to  discuss  the  above  questions 
without  pointing  out  in  considerable  detail  how, 
athwart  all  the  schemes  for  the  enlargement  of  impe 
rial  control,  rose  the  colonial  assemblies  with  their 
resistless,  creeping  encroachments  upon  the  prerogaK 
tive;  and  how,  as  a  result  of  the  rise  of  the  assemblies, 
the  center  of  gravity  of  colonial  administration  was 
shifted  from  England  to  America.  As  is  shown  in 
the  body  of  the  text,  that  was  the  most  important  con 
dition  confronting  those  who  attempted  to  rule  the 
colonies,  and  was  the  factor  which  spelled  failure  for 
so  many  of  their  plans. 


14          AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

Another  phase  of  the  relations  of  the  colonies  to  the 
home  government  which  has  never  received  adequate 
consideration,  and  which  is  dealt  with  at  some  length 
in  the  present  volume,  is  the  treatment  of  colonial  leg 
islation.  Who  directed  the  royal  veto?  What  laws 
were  vetoed  and  for  what  reasons?  Were  such  inter 
ferences  with  colonial  legislation  the  result  of  the  arbi 
trary  action  of  an  irresponsible  monarch,  or  that  of  a 
conservative  judicial  body?  What  was  the  effect  of 
such  vetoes  upon  colonial  legislation?  Has  our  own 
judicial  practice  inherited  anything  from  colonial  pre 
cedents  in  such  matters?  These  are  some  of  the  ques 
tions  which  have  been  considered,  and  upon  which, 
it  is  believed,  light  has  been  thrown. 

As  there  is  no  treatise  which  discusses  in  adequate 
detail  the  changes  in  the  English  constitution  during 
the  eighteenth  century,  it  has  been  necessary  to  inves 
tigate  rather  carefully  the  operation  of  the  Privy 
Council  and  the  work  and  development  of  its  com 
mittees.  This  has  led  to  conclusions  somewhat  novel, 
and  perhaps  at  variance  with  commonly  accepted 
ideas;  but  it  is  believed  that  these  conclusions  will 
stand  criticism  and  be  fully  sustained  by  more  com 
plete  investigation.  The  subject  is  one  which  prop 
erly  belongs  within  the  field  of  English  constitutional 
history;  but  as  an  understanding  of  the  matter  is  neces 
sary  to  an  intelligent  account  of  the  organs  of  colonial 
administration,  there  was  no  alternative  but  to  include 
a  rather  detailed  description  of  the  committee  system 
and  its  operation. 

As  the  field  covered  is  one  which  has  hitherto  re 
mained  undeveloped,  the  subject  matter  has  of  neces 
sity  been  drawn  to  a  preponderant  extent  from  original 


PREFACE  15 


sources.  In  the  first  place,  these  have  been  the  man 
uscript  records,  formerly  in  the  possession  of  the 
Board  of  Trade,  but  now  deposited  in  the  Public  Rec 
ord  Office  in  London;  secondly,  the  Privy  Council 
Register  at  Whitehall  and  the  British  Museum  Addi 
tional  Manuscripts,  sources  which  generally  have  been 
neglected  by  former  writers  of  this  period ;  and  finally, 
very  careful  use  has  been  made  of  the  readily  accessi 
ble  printed  copies  of  colonial  records,  colonial  laws, 
and  the  correspondence  of  colonial  governors.  Sec 
ondary  material  has  proved  unusually  disappointing, 
although  a  small  percentage  of  it  was  of  real  service. 
No  use  has  been  made  of  transcripts,  but  in  all  cases 
where  manuscripts  are  cited,  the  reference  is  to  the 
original  documents  in  London.  In  general  these  cita 
tions  follow  the  present  classifications  and  are  by  num 
ber  instead  of  name :  a  glance  at  the  table  in  the  biblio 
graphy,  however,  will  make  clear  the  nature  of  all 
papers  cited. 

The  author  wishes  to  express  his  appreciation  of  the 
unfailing  courtesy  of  the  officials  at  the  Privy  Council 
Office  at  Whitehall  and  of  those  at  the  Public  Record 
Office  in  London,  especially  Mr.  Hubert  H.  Hall 
whose  vast  knowledge  of  the  material  in  the  records 
under  his  care  is  placed  so  unstintingly  at  the  disposal 
of  American  students.  To  Professor  Edward  Chan- 
ning  and  Professor  Evarts  B.  Greene  special  acknowl 
edgments  are  due.  Help  and  advice  have  also  been 
received  from  Professor  Charles  M.  Andrews,  Her 
man  V.  Ames,  and  Clarence  W.  Alvord. 

OLIVER  MORTON  DICKERSON. 
Macomb,  Illinois,  June,  1911. 


I.  ORGANIZATION  AND  PERSONNEL  OF 
THE  BOARD  OF  TRADE 

Colonial  Administration  prior  to  l6c)6 

The  first  half  of  the  seventeenth  century  had  been  a 
period  of  beginnings  and  experiments  in  colonial  ad 
ministration.  The  planters  on  the  continent  of  Amer 
ica  had  not  been  numerous  enough  nor  wealthy  enough 
to  invite  very  serious  attention  from  the  British  gov 
ernment  until  after  the  great  Puritan  migration  was 
well  under  way.  What  little  control  there  was  came 
from  the  Privy  Council;  but  in  1634,  Archbishop 
Laud  was  delegated  to  head  a  commission  for  foreign 
plantations  with  almost  royal  powers  over  political, 
judicial,  and  ecclesiastical  affairs  in  the  colonies.  This 
commission  seems  to  have  been  created  as  a  result  of 
the  steady  Puritan  emigration  to  New  England  with 
the  object  of  enforcing  the  royal  will  beyond  the  sea, 
but  it  accomplished  practically  nothing  and  came  to 
an  end  when  Parliament  seized  control  of  the  central 
government.1 

The  periods  of  the  Civil  War,  Commonwealth,  and 
Protectorate  produced  no  new  organs  of  colonial 
administration;  in  fact  the  colonies  were  left  pretty 
much  to  their  own  devices.  What  control  was  exer- 

1  Andrews,  Charles  McL.  British  Committees,  Commissions,  and  Coun 
cils  of  Trade  and  Plantations,  1622-1675,  chap,  i ;  Osgood,  Herbert  L. 
American  Colonies  in  the  Seventeenth  Century,  vol.  iii,  chap,  i ;  Egerton, 
Hugh  E.  Short  History  of  British  Colonial  Policy,  74. 


i8         AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

cised  centered  either  in  Parliament  directly  or  in  the 
later  Council  of  State  where  the  protector's  will  was 
dominant.  The  advent  of  Cromwell,  however,  had 
instilled  a  new  spirit  of  efficiency  and  aggressiveness 
into  every  department  of  the  government  and  pervad 
ed  other  phases  of  the  nation's  activity.  Colonial 
commerce  attracted  able  and  wealthy  merchants  and 
soon  acquired  such  importance  that  the  administra 
tive  machinery  for  both  trade  and  plantations  became 
plainly  inadequate.  This  led  Martin  Noell  and 
Thomas  Povey,  two  merchants  who  had  considerable 
financial  investments  in  the  colonies  and  in  colonial 
commerce,  especially  in  the  newly  acquired  West 
India  plantations,  to  lay  before  the  protector  a  scheme 
for  colonial  control  which  would  weld  the  isolated 
governments  in  America  into  a  single  government 
under  the  control  of  a  central  board  in  England.2 

Noell's  plan  was  not  put  in  operation  during  Crom 
well's  rule,  but  with  slight  alterations  it  was  presented 
to  the  advisers  of  Charles  II  soon  after  the  Restora 
tion  and  became  the  basis  for  the  scheme  which  they 
adopted  in  1660.  Instead  of  a  single  committee,  how 
ever,  two  were  created:  one  to  deal  with  trade,  and 
the  other  with  the  plantations,  although  each  assisted 
the  other.  Both  committees  included  in  their  mem 
bership  privy  councilors  and  merchants,  and  neither 
acted  independently  of  the  Council,  but  reported  their 
findings  to  that  body.  The  Committee  for  Foreign 
Plantations  was  given  very  extensive  powers,  includ 
ing  control  over  commercial,  governmental,  and  re 
ligious  conditions,  and  anything  else  which  might 
concern  the  existing  colonies  or  those  which  should 

2  Andrews,   C.     British   Committees,  Commissions,  and  Councils,  24-58. 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  BOARD  19 

be  acquired.  Most  of  these  powers  were  never  exer 
cised  and  the  committee  seems  to  have  come  to  an  end 
about  1665,  although  its  commission  does  not  appear 
to  have  been  suppressed  at  that  time.3  In  one  form 
or  another  the  dual  arrangement  of  separate  commit 
tees  for  trade  and  for  the  plantations  continued  until 
1672  when  they  were  merged  into  a  single  committee,4 
which  in  turn  was  suppressed,  and  in  1675  the  entire 
control  of  trade  and  foreign  plantations  was  trans 
ferred  to  a  committee  of  the  Privy  Council.5 

This  body  is  known  as  the  Lords  of  the  Committee 
of  Trade  and  Plantations,  or  simply  Lords  of  Trade, 
a  name  which  continued  to  be  used  for  the  members 
of  the  later  Board  of  Trade.6  Aside  from  changes 
in  membership  this  committee  continued  to  be  used 
for  the  control  of  both  trade  and  colonial  affairs  until 
1696,  when  the  Board  of  Trade  was  created.  Under 
James  II  this  committee  became  very  energetic,  espe 
cially  in  its  efforts  to  suppress  the  proprietary  and 
charter  colonies  and  to  establish  in  New  England  a 
single  consolidated  government  modeled  after  that  in 
New  York.  It  was  the  period  of  Andros  and  his 
somewhat  arbitrary  methods  and  of  the  quo  warranto 
proceedings  against  the  charters  of  Massachusetts 
Bay,  Rhode  Island,  and  Connecticut.7  For  the  first 

3  Andrews,   C.     British   Committees,  Commissions,  and  Councils,  61-95. 

4  This  committee  had  even  greater  powers  than  its  predecessors.     See: 
Andrews,    C.     British    Committees,    Commissions,    and    Councils,    97-110; 
Colonial  Self  Government,  25. 

5  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iii,  p.  xiv ;  Andrews,  C.     British 
Committees,  Commissions,  and  Councils,  111-113. 

6  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vols.  iii,  iv,  v,  vi,  vii,  passim. 

7  Osgood,  H.  L.     American  Colonies,  vol.  iii,  chap,  ix-xiv;  Andrews,  C. 
Colonial  Self  Government,  26-40;  Egerton,  H.  E.    British  Colonial  Policy, 
92-112. 


20         AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

time  a  serious  attempt  had  been  made  to  carry  out  a 
definite  plan  of  administration  in  the  colonies,  and  it 
came  so  near  succeeding  that  direct  control  by  the 
crown  acquired  a  most  unsavory  reputation  in  Amer 
ica.  The  Revolution  of  1688  interrupted  the  plans 
for  colonial  government  and  led  directly  to  the  restor 
ation  of  the  charters,  but  it  produced  no  change  in  the 
existing  machinery  for  managing  the  colonies.  Wil 
liam  III  followed  closely  in  the  footsteps  of  his  pred 
ecessor  and  appointed  a  new  committee  of  the  Privy 
Council  to  take  up  the  work  of  colonial  administra 
tion  where  it  had  been  laid  down.  With  slight 
changes  in  membership,  this  body  continued  to  be  em 
ployed  by  him  for  all  questions  concerning  commerce 
or  the  plantations  until  opposition  in  the  House  of 
Commons  forced  him  to  abolish  it  and  establish  the 
Board  of  Trade.8 

Organization  of  the  Board  of  Trade 

The  merchants  had  suffered  severe  losses  during 
the  great  continental  war,  and  the  opposition  in  the 
House  of  Commons  took  advantage  of  the  dissatisfac 
tion  caused  by  these  losses  to  attack  the  administra 
tion.  There  was  a  bitter  debate  in  the  committee  of 
the  whole.  Some  even  asserted  that  the  administra 
tion  had  neglected  the  needs  of  English  merchants 
and  had  openly  connived  at  the  destruction  of  English 
trade  so  that  the  Dutch  traders  and  merchants  might 
be  the  gainers.9  As  a  result  of  the  debate  in  the  com 
mittee,  a  series  of  fourteen  resolutions  were  reported 
to  the  house. 

8  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iii,  p.  xiv. 

9  Burnet,  Gilbert.     History  of  his  own  Time,  621 ;  Cobbett,  Wm.     Par 
liamentary  History  of  England,  vol.  v,  977. 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  BOARD 21 

These  resolutions  provided  for  the  creation,  by  act 
of  Parliament,  of  a  council  of  trade  whose  members 
should  be  named  by  that  body  and  which  should  have 
the  power  to  control  commerce,  even  to  the  extent  of 
appointing  convoys  for  outgoing  vessels.  It  was  also 
to  take  charge  of  the  plantation  and  other  trade  of 
the  kingdom,  supervise  the  administration  of  poor  re 
lief,  and  could  enforce  its  authority  by  examining 
persons  on  oath.10  Some  of  the  resolutions,  specify 
ing  an  oath  of  allegiance  for  members  of  this  commit 
tee,  prohibiting  the  appointment  of  members  of  Par 
liament,  and  directing  the  council  to  take  steps  to 
improve  the  balance  of  trade,  were  rejected  by  the 
house.  The  others  were  approved,  January  31,  1696, 
and  a  bill  ordered  brought  in.11 

William  III  was  opposed  to  any  such  body  as  the 
bill  would  establish,  as  it  contemplated  a  serious  en 
croachment  upon  the  royal  prerogative.  Many 

Apprehended  that,  if  the  Parliament  named  the  persons,  how 
low  soever  their  powers  might  be  at  first,  they  would  be  en 
larged  every  session,  and  from  being  a  council  to  look  into 
matters  of  trade,  they  would  next  be  empowered  to  appoint 
convoys  and  cruisers.  This  in  time  might  draw  in  the  whole 
admiralty,  and  that  part  of  the  revenue  or  supply  which  was 
appropriated  to  the  navy; 

and  those  who  pushed  the  measure  the  most  vigorously 

Did   not  deny  that  they  designed   to  ingraft  many  things 


upon  it.12 


Sunderland  surprised  many  people  by  pushing  the 


10  Journal  of  the  House  of  Commons,  vol.  xi,  423-424;  Burnet,  G.  His 
tory   of   his  own    Time,   621 ;    Cobbett,   Wm.   Parliamentary   History,   vol. 
v,  977- 

11  Journal  of  the  House  of  Commons,  vol.  xi,  424. 

12  Cobbett,  Wm.     Parliamentary  History,  vol.  v,  978 ;  Burnet,  G.    His 
tory  of  his  own  Time,  621. 


22          AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

bill,  and  William  is  said  to  have  come  near  breaking 
with  him  because  of  this  fact.  In  spite  of  the  king's 
opposition,  the  bill  passed  its  second  reading,  but  was 
afterwards  dropped.13  Burnet  says  this  was  done 
because  of  the  threatened  invasion  of  England  and  the 
discovery  of  the  plot  against  the  life  of  William.1* 
Perhaps  that  was  the  real  reason,  but  it  should  also 
be  noted  that  the  bill  became  unnecessary  because  of 
the  prompt  issue  of  an  Order  in  Council  creating  a 
board  to  exercise  almost  the  same  functions  as  the 
council  of  trade  proposed  by  the  bill. 

The  last  action  of  the  House  of  Commons  on  the 
bill  was  March  3,  1696; 15  and  the  commission  under 
the  privy  seal  which  created  the  Board  of  Trade  is 
dated  May  15,  i696.16  That  the  clamor  in  the  House 
of  Commons  had  hastened  the  measure  seems  evident; 
an  examination  of  the  terms  of  the  commission  corrob 
orates  that  opinion.  The  commission  created  a  board 
similar  to  other  boards  of  the  British  government: 
there  were  the  real  and  the  nominal  members.  The  • 
real  members  were  eight  in  number  and  were  paid 
annual  salaries  of  one  thousand  pounds.17  The  pres- 

13  Granville  introduced  the  bill,  February  12,  1696,  when  it  was  read 
for  the  first  time.     February  18,  it  was  read  a  second  time  and  referred  to 
the  committee  of  the  whole  house.     See:  Journal  of  the  House  of  Commons, 
vol.  xi,  440,  454. 

14  This  is  very  probable,  as  the  plot  was  discovered  between  the  first  and 
second  postponements  of  the  consideration  of  the  bill  in  the  committee  to 
which  it  was  referred.    See:  Burnet,  G.  History  of  his  own  Time,  621.     Cf. 
Andrews's  British  Committees  t  Commissions,  and  Councils,  113-114. 

15  Journal  of  the  House  of  Commons,  vol.  xi,  488.     On  that  day  the  con 
sideration  of  the  bill  by  the  committee  was  postponed  to  a  fixed  date,  but 
apparently  it  was  never  again  taken  up. 

16  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iii,  p.  xv. 

17  Privy  Seal  for  payment  of  salaries,  June  29,   1697.     See:  Board  of 
Trade  Miscellanies,  vol.  ii,  34-38.     Other  payments  are  the  same. 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  BOARD  23 

ident  usually  received  an  additional  five  hundred 
pounds,1^  but  this  was  paid  by  the  secretary  of  state 
and  so  does  not  appear  in  the  annual  privy  seal.19  All 
of  the  chief  officers  of  state  were  ex  officiis  members, 
but  were  excused  from  attendance  upon  the  ordinary 
meetings  of  the  Board.20  They  were  not  merely  sham 
members,  however,  as  are  similar  officers  in  the  case 
of  the  so-called  administrative  boards  of  the  present 
time.  They  often  met  with  the  Board,  sometimes  at 
the  request  of  the  latter,  sometimes  without  special 
request,  and  sometimes  the  Board  was  called  upon  to 
attend  cabinet  meetings.21  On  all  ordinary  occasions, 
however,  the  eight  paid  members  constituted  the 

18  Bedford  in  offering  the  position  to  Halifax,  September  3,  1748,  says: 
"Mr.  Pelham  informs  me  that  the  salary  of  ye  first  Lord  of  Trade  is  the 
same  as  to  all  the  rest,  viz.  £1000  a  year,  but  that  the  first  Lord  has  always 
been  paid  by  him  £500  a  year  additional."  —  British  Museum  Additional 
Manuscripts,  32716,  f.  337. 

19  Nearly  all  of  the  privy  seals  for  the  payment  of  the  salaries  of  the 
Board  are  entered  in  Board  of  Trade  Miscellanies. 

20  The  commission  itself  provides  that  the  principal  secretaries  shall  not 
"be  obliged  to  give  constant  attendance  at  the  meetings  of  our  said  com 
missioners,  but  only  so  often  and  when  the  presence  of  them  or  any  of  them 
shall  be  necessary  and  requisite,  and  as  their  other  public  service  will  per 
mit."— New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iv,  148. 

21  A   few  of  the  many  cases  of  the  attendance  of  some  or  all  of  the 
principal  secretaries  of  state  are  cited  below: 

April  19,  1700.  Indian  affairs  and  the  danger  of  an  uprising.  Board  of 
Trade  Journal,  13,  pp.  10-11. 

June  12,  1700.  Proposed  treaty  with  the  French  as  to  the  bounds  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  region.  Ibid.,  pp.  70-73. 

May  17,  1709.  Board  requests  Sunderland  to  confer  with  them  about 
provisions  for  some  poor  Germans.  Ibid.,  21,  p.  98. 

February  18,  1712.  Great  officers  summoned  to  consider  the  trade  to 
Africa.  Attended  on  February  25,  February  28,  and  March  3,  1712.  Ibid., 
23,  pp.  100-113. 

April  7,  14,  20,  29,  May  4,  n,  19,  1726.  African  Trade.  Ibid.,  36, 
pp.  84-225. 

July  12,  1749.    Troubles  in  New  Jersey.    Ibid.,  57  (pages  not  numbered). 


24          AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

Board ;  and  of  these  three  or  five  constituted  a  quorum, 
according  to  the  nature  of  the  business.  Ordinary 
questions  of  trade  or  matters  touching  the  plantations 
could  be  considered  by  three  members,  but  formal 
representations  on  plantation  affairs  to  the  king  or  the 
council  had  to  be  signed  by  five  members.22 

The  new  board  was  given  an  imposing  array  of 
duties.  In  the  first  place,  it  was  charged  with  the  care 
of  the  trade  of  England  in  general  and  with  that  of 
particular  countries.  It  was  to  consider  plans  for  im 
proving  such  trade  as  was  deemed  beneficial ;  to  devise 
means  of  fostering  manufactures  that  were  "useful 
and  profitable;"  and  to  determine  how  "new  and  pro 
fitable  manufactures  may  be  introduced."  23  These 
were  the  inevitable  duties  imposed  by  the  general 
mercantilist  doctrines  of  the  time.  Secondly,  the 
Board  was  charged  with  the  care  of  the  poor  and 
the  duty  of  employing  them  so  as  not  to  burden 
the  kingdom.  The  third,  and  for  our  purpose  the 
most  important  function  of  the  Board,  was  the  care 
of  the  plantations.  Even  here,  however,  the  commis 
sion  shows  the  same  general  subordination  of  colonial 
administration  to  mercantile  ends.  CTrie  whole  ques 
tion  of  proper  government  for  the  colonies  was  con 
sidered  a  matter  of  minor  importance!  That  alone 
would  not  have  precipitated  the  discussion  in  the 
House  of  Commons,24  nor  was  it  the  principal  func 
tion  of  the  new  organ  of  central  control.  *The  most 

22  Copy  of  the  commission  in  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iv,  146. 

*>  —  Ibid. 

K^24  It  is  an  interesting  fact  that,  so  far  as  the  debates  on  the  proposed  bill 
are  reported,  there  is  not  a  single  word  about  proper  administration  in  the 
colonies.  The  vital  question  was  commerce  and  its  protection. 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  BOARD  25 

important  duty  of  the  Board  was  to  make  the  colonies 
commercially  profitable  to  the  mother  country.  To 
this  end  it  was  to  consider  what  naval  stores  could  be 
secured  from  them,  and  how  to  people  them  so  they 
could  furnish  the  raw  materials  which  "our  subjects 
of  England  are  now  oblidged  to  fetch  and  supply 
themselves  withall  from  other  princes  and  states."25 
It  was  also  to  find  out  what  manufactures  the  colonies 
already  had,  which  ones  were  capable  of  development, 
and  which  ones  should  be  discouraged  in  the  interests 
of  the  home  manufacturers. 

•In  order  to  carry  out  this  general  task  of  colonial 
supervision,  the  Board  was  given  control  of  the  gov 
ernors'  instructions,  with  the  duty  of  conducting  the 
correspondence  with  them,  and  was  expected  to  em 
body  in  its  reports  to  the  king  the  important  informa 
tion  gleaned  from  this  source.  The  Board  was  not 
given  control  of  the  colonial  patronage,  but  it  was  to 
consider  and  recommend  to  the  king  for  appointment 
proper  persons  for  governors,  deputy  governors,  mem 
bers  of  the  provincial  councils,  secretaries,  and  other 
colonial  officers.  This  was  a  power  of  nomination, 
but  not  of  appointment,  as  all  final  action  had  to  be 
taken  by  the  king  in  council.  All  colonial  legisla 
tion  was  intrusted  to  the  care  of  the  Board :  it  was  to 
examine  the  laws  passed  by  the  colonial  assemblies, 
decide  which  ones  were  fit  to  be  confirmed  and  which 
ones  should  be  disallowed,  and  report  its  opinions  to 
the  king  in  council.  Likewise  it  was  made  the  organ 
for  hearing  all  complaints  of  oppressions  and  malad 
ministration  in  the  colonies  and  reporting  to  the  king 

25  See  the  Commission,  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iv,  147. 


26         AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

in  council  what  should  be  done  in  each  case.26  It  was 
also  to  require  strict  accounts  of  all  funds  raised  by 
the  colonial  assemblies  and  expended  for  public  pur 
poses.  Finally,  in  order  to  make  the  grant  of  powers 
and  duties  effective,  the  Board  was  authorized  to  send 
for  persons  and  papers,  to  examine  persons  on  oath,27 
and  to  "execute  and  perform  all  other  things  neces 
sary  or  proper  for  answering  our  royal  intentions  in 
the  premises."  If  the  Board  desired  legal  advice  on 
any  point  of  law,  it  could  apply  to  the  attorney-  and 
solicitor-general,  either  or  both ;  or  it  might  employ 
any  other  crown  attorney.28 

The  body  which  was  to  perform  these  various  du 
ties  was  not  a  sham  board,  as  are  the  present  so-called 
"Boards"  of  the  British  government;  it  was  a  real  col 
legiate  body,  as  all  of  its  actions  required  the  sanction 
of  three  or  five  members.  That  was  one  of  its  defects 
in  organization^ because  responsibility  was  divided; 
yet  it  was  always  possible  for  an  able  president  to 
assume  responsibility,  completely  dominate  the  Board, 
and  raise  himself  to  the  position  of  secretary  of  state, 
which  is  what  finally  happened. 
^L/Another  criticism  is  that  the  Board  lacked  inde 
pendence.  Those  who  make  this  charge  seem  to 
mean  by  the  word  independence  something  akin  to  the 
independence  of  the  civil  service  officer,  or  an  execu 
tive  officer  with  independent  functions  such  as  we  are 

26  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iv,  148. 

27  The  only  occasions  I  have  found  of  the  exercise  of  this  power  were 
in  connection  with  the  charges  against  Surveyor  of  the  Woods  Armstrong 
in  1722,  and  a  case  from  St.  Christophers  which  came  before  the  Board  for 
investigation,  when  several  witnesses  were  sworn  before  testifying.     See: 
Board  of  Trade  Journals,  22,  p.  227,  and  56,  pp.  148-193. 

28  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iv,  148. 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  BOARD  27 

accustomed  to  in  the  United  States.29  The  first  con 
dition  is  one  of  dependence,  and  the  second  is  impos 
sible  under  the  parliamentary  form  of  government. 
That  man  must  finally  shape  the  policy  of  the  admin 
istration  who  is  responsible  to  the  House  of  Commons. 
If  he  must  answer  for  the  actions  of  a  board  in  his 
department,  that  board  cannot  claim  independence. 
In  such  a  government  as  that  of  England,  important 
administrative  policies  are  the  result  of  compromise 
among  those  who  are  to  assume  responsibility  for 
them,  and  in  reaching  that  compromise,  that  man's 
opinion  has  most  weight  who  can  muster  the  greatest 
support  in  the  House  of  Commons.  Thus  the  ques 
tion  of  independence  is  a  personal  one;  and  the  mem 
bers  of  the  Board  of  Trade  could  be  independent  only 
so  far  as  their  support  was  necessary  to  the  stability 
of  the  existing  ministry. 

The  terms  of  the  commission  are  by  no  means 
important  as  the  personal  relations  of  the  president 
of  the  Board  to  the  chief  ministers.  If  the  minister 
were  powerful  enough  he  could,  and  sometimes  did, 
give  the  Board  to  understand  that  it  should  not  pre 
sume  to  exercise  some  of  the  most  important  of  its 
commission  powers.  Under  such  circumstances  the 
will  of  the  minister,  not  the  terms  of  its  commission, 
determined  what  it  could  do.  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  president  of  the  Board  secured  his  position  be 
cause  of  the  support  which  he  commanded  in  the 

29  Miss  Kellogg,  in  her  article  on  the  "American  Colonial  Charter,"  in 
discussing  the  defects  of  the  Board  and  after  comparing  it  with  the  earlier 
committees  of  the  Privy  Council,  adds:  the  powers  given  to  the  Board  "indi 
cate  an  unwillingness  to  render  the  colonial  administration  independent  of 
the  control  of  the  crown  and  of  its  chief  ministers."  —  American  Historical 
Association,  Report  for  /poj,  vol.  i,  217. 


28         AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

House  of  Commons,  he  became,  by  virtue  of  that  fact, 
one  of  the  important  crown  officers  and  could  insist 
upon  carrying  out  his  own  policies.  All  of  these  con 
ditions  are  illustrated  in  the  history  of  the  Board  of 
Trade. 

The  personnel  of  the  Board 

As  the  Board  had  been  created  largely  to  silence 
criticism,  its  first  list  of  members  was  designed  to  in 
spire  confidence.  John  Egerton,  Earl  of  Bridge- 
water,  was  made  president.80  He  was  not  especially 
noted  for  his  knowledge  of  colonial  affairs,  but  he  had 
the  confidence  of  the  country  and  especially  of  Wil 
liam,  was  a  member  of  the  Privy  Council,  a  staunch 
supporter  of  the  Revolution,  and  a  close  personal 
friend  of  the  king.31  He  was  assisted  by  men  who 
were  familiar  with  colonial  affairs;  the  most  noted 
of  whom  was  John  Locke  who  had  enjoyed  the  best 
possible  training  for  such  a  position,  as  he  had  long 
been  interested  personally  in  trade  affairs  and  had 
written  on  various  economic  questions.  He  had  been 
associated  with  Lord  Ashley,  had  drawn  up  the  elabo 
rate  constitution  for  Carolina,  was  made  secretary  of 
the  reorganized  Council  of  Trade  and  had  held  that 
position  until  he  was  forced  to  leave  England  because 
of  his  complicity  in  the  Monmouth  plot.  Returning  to 
England  with  William,  he  had  been  made  one  of  the 
commissioners  of  appeals  and,  on  the  creation  of  the 
Board  of  Trade,  was  induced  to  become  a  member. 
Although  he  was  old  and  in  failing  health,  he  attended 

30  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  in,  p.  xv. 

31  Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  vol.  xvii,  1578;  New  York  Colonial 
Documents,  vol.  iv,  103,  146;  Macaulay,  Thos.  B.  History  of  England  from 
the  Accession  of  James  the  Second,  vol.  v,  passim. 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  BOARD 29 

the  meetings  very  regularly  until  he  resigned  in  lyoo.82 
John  Pollexfen  was  another  man  who  had  special 
knowledge  of  the  colonies  and  of  colonial  affairs.  He 
had  served  as  one  of  the  Lords  of  Trade  in  1675,  and 
was  a  man  of  great  influence.  He  was  noted  as  a 
writer  on  economic  subjects,  and  belonged  to  the  mod 
erate  school  of  mercantilists,  who  believed  in  state 
regulation  of  industry  but  also  in  freedom  of  trade, 
and  was  especially  opposed  to  such  monopolies  as  that 
of  the  East  India  Company.33  Another,  and  by  no 
means  the  least  important  of  the  men  with  colonial 
experience,  was  William  Blathwayt,  a  man  of  great 
ability,34  who  had  been  secretary  to  the  old  committee 
of  the  Privy  Council,  and  had  retained  his  position 
after  the  Revolution. 

Of  the  other  members  of  the  Board,  Ford  Grey, 
Earl  of  Tankerville,  who  was  second  in  the  commis 
sion,  had  played  a  prominent  part  in  politics.  A  man 
of  much  parliamentary  ability,  he  had  voted  for  the 
conviction  of  Strafford,  was  commander  of  the  cavalry 
in  Monmouth's  rebellion,  and  escaped  punishment 
only  after  giving  excessive  bonds,  he  had  taken  an 
active  part  in  the  Revolution  as  one  of  the  Convention 
Lords,  and  was  made  a  member  of  the  Privy  Council. 

32  Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  vol.  xxxiv,  27-36;  Fowler.  Life  of 
John  Locke,  22-112;  Cunningham.  Growth  of  English  Industry,  vol.  ii,  380, 
381,  385,  426. 

33  Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  vol.  xlvi,  62 ;  Cunningham.  Growth 
of  English  Industry,  vol.  ii,  280-291,  footnote.     See  also  the  Discourse  of 
Trade,  Coyne,  etc.,  by  Pollexfen. 

34  Because  of  his  linguistic  skill  he  was  also  a  great  favorite  of  William 
III  and  was  with  him  in  the  campaign  in  Flanders.     See:  Dictionary  of 
National  Biography,  vol.  v,  206;  Macaulay,  Thos.  B.  History  of  England, 
vol.  ii,  378-381;  Privy  Council  Register,  "George  I";  Pepys,  Samuel.  Diary 
and  Correspondence,  vol.  iv,  243,  295. 


30          AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

He  was  also  a  close  friend  of  William  and,  on  the 
absence  of  that  sovereign  in  1700,  was  one  of  the  Lords 
Justices.35  Abraham  Hill  was  a  man  of  science,  a 
member  of  the  Royal  Society,  and  was,  for  many  years, 
treasurer  of  that  organization.36  John  Methuen,  one 
of  the  prominent  Whig  members  of  the  House  of  Com 
mons,  was  a  politician  and  a  diplomat  and  after  his 
withdrawal  from  the  Board  of  Trade  was  sent  to 
Portugal  on  important  diplomatic  duties.37 

From  the  above  account,  it  is  seen  that  the  first 
Board  was  of  a  very  representative  character.  Two 
of  its  members,  and  these  the  first  two  names  in  the 
commission,  were  members  of  the  Privy  Council, 
which  made  the  Board  in  a  certain  sense  a  committee 
of  that  body,  as  the  older  organization  had  been.  Two 
other  members  occupied  seats  in  the  House  of  Com 
mons;  in  that  respect  it  recognized  the  demand  for 
popular  control.  Three  of  the  members  had  served 
on  the  earlier  Council  of  Trade,  consequently  the  ex 
pert  knowledge  gained  by  experience  and  the  strong 
government  tendencies  of  the  preceding  reign  were 
represented.  In  politics,  however,  the  Whigs  were 
the  only  party  represented. 

Great  results  were  expected  from  the  work  of  a 
Board  which  apparently  had  very  generous  powers 
and  was  composed  of  such  able  men;  and,  on  the 
whole,  it  cannot  be  said  that  the  Board  disappointed 
these  expectations.  It  organized  at  once  at  Whitehall, 
the  papers  and  records  of  the  old  Council  for  Foreign 

35Burnet,  G.  History  of  his  own  Time  (ed.  of  1857),  321,  352,  359, 
405,  411,  414;  Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  New  York  Colonial  Docu 
ments,  vol.  iv,  146,  628. 

86  Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  vol.  xxvi,  389-390. 

87 —  Ibid.,  vol.  xxxvii,  310. 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  BOARD  31 

Plantations  and  of  the  Committee  of  the  Privy  Coun 
cil  were  transferred  to  its  offices,  and  it  entered  upon 
its  duties  with  vigor.38  Meetings  were  held  at  first 
three,  and  later  five  times  a  week. 

So  far  as  colonial  affairs  are  concerned,  the  action 
of  the  Board  shows  efficiency  at  all  points  down  to  the 
accession  of  George  I.  The  acts  of  trade  and  navi 
gation  were  enforced,  able  men  were  sent  out  as  gov 
ernors,  piracy  was  suppressed,  and  the  Indians  kept 
in  alliance.  It  exercised  a  careful  supervision  of 
colonial  laws,  and  assailed  the  independence  of  the 
proprietary  and  charter  colonies  so  vigorously  that  the 
power  of  the  crown  over  them  was  considerably  ex 
tended.  Their  governors  not  only  had  to  be  approved 
by  the  Board,  but  they  were  also  required  to  accept  the 
instructions  of  that  body  for  the  enforcement  of  the 
acts  of  trade  and  navigation,  and  were  compelled  to 
give  bonds  for  observing  them.39  Had  it  not  been  for 
lack  of  ministerial  support  and  the  pressure  of  more 
weighty  matters,  all  the  proprietary  governments 
would  have  been  resumed  by  the  crown,  and  possibly 
the  existing  charters  seized  by  quo  warranto.  In  view 
of  the  actual  accomplishment  of  the  Board  during  the 
first  twenty  years  of  its  history,  it  cannot  be  accused 
of  impotence  or  of  not  having  justified  its  existence. 

The  personnel  of  the  Board  remained  efficient  until 
1714,  although  there  was  a  gradual  change  in  mem- 

38  The  first  session  was  held  at  Whitehall,  June  25,  1696.     See:  Board 
of  Trade  Papers,  Journal  A.  (cited  by  Miss  Kellogg,  in  "American  Colonial 
Charter"  in  American  Historical  Association  Report  for  1903,  vol.  i,  217). 
The  commission  required  the  Board  to  take  charge  of  the  existing  records. 
See:  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iv,  147. 

39  See  the  correspondence  of  Bellomont  with  the  Board  in  New  York 
Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iv,  passim.',  Penn-Logan  correspondence,  passim; 
North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  vol.  ii,  51  and  passim. 


32         AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

bers,  Sir  Philip  Meadows  alone  remaining  of  the  orig 
inal  appointments.  The  Earl  of  Bridgewater  was 
replaced  in  1699  by  Thomas  Grey,  Earl  of  Stamford, 
a  rigid,  narrow-minded  Whig  who  had  been  one  of 
the  active  opponents  of  the  policy  of  the  Stuarts,  had 
been  a  member  of  the  Privy  Council  during  a  part  of 
William  Ill's  reign,  and  continued  to  serve  under 
Anne.  The  work  of  the  Board  during  his  adminis 
tration  shows  him  to  have  been  an  able  officer.  On 
the  accession  of  Anne,  he  was  dismissed  from  all  his 
offices,  but  was  soon  restored  to  the  presidency  of  the 
Board,  and  continued  in  that  position  until  the  Tories 
acquired  the  ascendency  in  171 1.40  The  interim  be 
tween  his  two  periods  of  service  was  filled  by  William 
Legge,  Lord  Dartmouth,  a  moderate  Tory  and  also  a 
member  of  the  Privy  Council.  He  was  afterwards 
secretary  of  state  for  the  Northern  Department  and 
was  influential  in  bringing  about  the  downfall  of 
Marlborough.41  The  change  that  swept  Stamford 
and  Marlborough  out  of  office  brought  in  the  Earl  of 
Winchelsea  as  president  of  the  Board,  only  to  be  re 
placed  after  two  years  by  Lord  Guilford,  who  in  turn 
lost  office  at  the  death  of  Queen  Anne;42 

Aside  from  the  presidents,  many  prominent  men 
served  on  the  Board  between  the  years  1606  and  1715. 

40  The  lists  of  changes  in  the  personnel  of  the  Board  in    New  York 
Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iii,  p.  xv,  does  not  show  the  dismissal  of  Stamford 
and  the  promotion  of  Dartmouth,  but  the  statement  is  made  in  the  biograph 
ical  notice  of  him  in  the  Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  vol.  xxiii,  207- 
208.     Miss  Kellogg  in  the  "American  Colonial  Charter"  also  accepts  this 
statement.     See:   American   Historical   Association,   Reports   for   /poj,   vol. 
i,  220. 

41  Burnet,  G.  History  of  his  own  Time   (ed.  of  1857),  856;  Dictionary 
of  National  Biography,  vol.  xxxii,  416. 

42  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iii,  p.  xvi. 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  BOARD 33 

George  Stepney,  who  succeeded  Methuen  in  1697, was 
a  diplomat  and  a  poet,  and  his  wide  knowledge  of  for 
eign  affairs  was  of  much  assistance  to  the  Board  in 
framing  some  of  its  policies.43  Locke,  who  retired  in 
1700,  was  replaced  by  Matthew  Prior,44  who  had  been 
an  under  secretary  of  state,  and  who  later  was  one  of 
Bolingbroke's  secret  agents  in  negotiating  the  Treaty 
of  Utrecht.  He  was  a  Tory  and,  because  of  his  active 
relations  with  that  party,  was  removed  from  the  Board 
in  I7o6.45  Lord  Herbert  of  Cherbury,  who  served 
from  1706  to  1710,  was  another  man  of  considerable 
prominence,  active  in  the  affairs  of  the  House  of  Lords 
and  frequently  chairman  of  its  committees.46 

The  Tories  acquired  control  of  the  government  dur 
ing  the  last  years  of  Queen  Anne's  reign,  and  the  Board 
of  Trade  reflects  the  change  in  politics.  The  Whig 
members  were  gradually  retired  after  1710,  and  Tories 
took  their  places.  By  1713  the  Board  had  become  al 
most  entirely  Tory,  several  new  men  being  added  that 
year.  The  most  prominent  of  these  were  John  Hynde 
Cotton,47  a  famous  Jacobite  politician,  and  Arthur 
Moore.  Of  the  latter,  Burnet  says  he  had 

Risen  up,  from  being  a  footman  without  any  education,  to  be 
a  great  dealer  in  trade,  and  was  the  person  of  that  Board  in 
whom  the  lord  treasurer  confided  most ; 

and  Mr.  Speaker  Onslow  tells  us  he  was  a  man 

Of  extraordinary  talents,  with  great  experience  and  knowl 
edge  of  the  world,  very  able  in  Parliament,  and  capable  of  the 

43  Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  vol.  xliv,  190. 

44  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  July  17,  1700,  13,  p.  114. 

45  Burnet,  G.  History  of  his  oiun  Time  (ed.  of  1857),  872  and  footnote. 
See  also  Johnson's  Lives  of  the  Poets-,  and  Dictionary  of  National  Biography, 
vol.  xlvi,  397. 

48  Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  vol.  xxiv,  193. 
47  —  Ibid.,  article  "Cotton." 


34          AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

highest  parts  of  business,  with  a  manner  in  it,  and  indeed  in 
his  general  deportment,  equal  almost  to  any  rank.48 

He  was,  however,  accused  of  having  sacrificed  the 
commercial  interests  of  England  in  the  Treaty  of 
Utrecht. 

The  accession  of  George  I,  with  its  complete  change 
of  ministry,  caused  a  sweeping  change  in  the  person 
nel  of  the  Board.  As  the  last  Board  under  Anne  had 
been  Tory,  the  new  one  was  completely  Whig.  The 
new  members  had  little  or  no  previous  experience  in 
colonial  affairs,  whatever  their  knowledge  of  trade 
might  have  been.  Many  of  the  members  of  the  Board 
for  the  next  three  decades  were  either  placemen  of 
the  ministers  in  power  or  needy  members  of  the  House 
of  Commons,  to  whom  the  salary  of  a  thousand  pounds 
a  year  was  a  sufficient  inducement  to  secure  their  sup 
port  of  the  ministerial  policy.  Too  often,  these  men 
looked  upon  their  positions  as  sinecures  and  rendered 
little  or  no  real  service.  The  whole  period  from 
1714  to  1748  is  characterized  by  the  insignificance  of 
the  men  who  served  on  the  Board  of  Trade.  There 
were  really  no  members,  during  this  time,  who  made 
lasting  reputations  for  themselves  in  the  colonial  field. 

The  first  president  under  George  I  was  William, 
Lord  Berkeley  of  Stratton.  In  a  few  months  he  was 
superseded  by  Henry  Howard,  Earl  of  Suffolk  and 
Bindon,  who  held  the  position  from  1715  to  I7i8.49 
In  that  year,  Robert  D'Arcy,  Earl  of  Holderness,  as 
sumed  charge  but  he  continued  in  office  only  one  year, 
when  Thomas  Fane,  Earl  of  Westmoreland,  was  ap- 

48Burnet,  G.  History  of  his  own  Time  (ed.  of  1857),  898  and  footnote', 
Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  vol.  xxxviii,  340. 

49  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iii,  p.  xvi ;  Burke,  Sir  Bernard. 
Genealogical  and  heraldic  Dictionary  of  the  Peerage  and  Baronetage,  1402. 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  BOARD  35 

pointed.  There  was  no  further  change  until  I735,50 
when  Benjamin  Mildmay,  Lord  Fitzwalter,  became 
president  and  served  for  two  years.  He  in  turn  was 
succeeded  by  Sir  John  Monson,  one  of  Marlborough's 
soldiers  and  a  close  adherent  of  Newcastle  and  Bed 
ford,  who  continued  in  office  for  eleven  years.  There 
is  no  evidence  that  he  ever  evinced  any  desire  to  make 
his  office  anything  but  a  sinecure,51  and  it  is  during  his 
administration  that  the  Board  shows  its  least  activity. 

50  A  letter  written  by  Robert  Hunter  Morris,  who  was  in  London  at  that 
time,  to  James  Alexander  offers  a  possible  explanation  for  this  change. 
Governor  Cosby  had  removed  certain  members  of  the  council  in  New  Jersey 
for  opposing  him.  His  letter,  stating  his  action  and  asking  the  home  govern 
ment  to  confirm  it,  was  in  the  office  of  the  Board  and  the  confirmation  was 
opposed  by  the  colonial  agent,  Mr.  Paris.  On  account  of  this  opposition  the 
Board  delayed  action.  Morris  says,  "the  governour's  letter  was  dated  in 
December  last  and  was  committed  to  the  care  of  the  Duke  New  Castle  who 
has  been  all  this  time  striving  to  get  the  report  of  the  board  of  trade  upon  it, 
and  could  not  do  it  before.  My  Lord  West  Moreland  was  much  against  it,  as 
being  unjust  to  condemn  the  parties  unheard  and  without  giving  them  an 
opportunity  to  justifie  their  conduct,  especially  when  there  was  a  caveat 
entered  in  their  office  against  such  a  removal.  Blagdon  [Bladen]  and 
Dockmineque  were  also  against  it  but  my  Lord  West  Moreland  being  re 
moved  from  the  Board  and  Dockmineque  being  dead,  my  Lord  Fitzwalter 
and  another  new  member  made  in  the  room  of  Dockmineque  were  fond  of 
obliging  the  secretary  of  state  and  so  got  a  report  in  favour  of  Mr.  Cosby." 

—  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  431-433. 

61  Some  idea  can  be  formed  of  how  much  of  a  sinecure  some  of  the  mem 
bers  made  of  their  positions  and  how  regularly  others  attended  the  Board 
from  the  record  of  attendance  [Board  of  Trade  Journal,  50,  51]  during  the 
three  years,  1741-1743. 


Monson 

Bladen 

Plumer 

Brudenell 

Ashe 

Croft 

Herbert 

Pelham 

Keene 


1741 

1742 

1743 

!SENT 

1  ABSENT 

PRESENT 

ABSENT 

PRESENT 

ABSENT 

80 

40 

IOI 

37 

92 

27 

ICO 

20 

123 

15 

IOI 

18 

112 

8 

128 

10 

118 

ii 

58 

62 

79 

59 

45 

74 

46 

74 

49 

89 

38 

81 

8 

112 

138 

4 

116 

8 

130 

4 

"5 

12 

108 

45 

93 

46 

74 

97 

4i 

98 

21 

36          AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

Governors  and  other  persons  interested  in  colonial  af 
fairs  found  little  heed  paid  to  their  communications 
addressed  to  the  Board :  they  also  learned  that  if  it  re 
fused  to  take  any  desired  action  the  remedy  lay  in 
an  appeal  directly  to  Newcastle.  Under  Monson's 52 
care,  the  Board  became  little  more  than  a  bureau  of 
information,  and  it  was  not  even  efficient  in  fulfilling 
that  function. 

The  records  on  their  physical  side  show  that  the 
Board  was  little  more  than  a  joke  during  his  admin 
istration.  The  Journal  had  formerly  been  a  very 
bulky  folio  volume  of  several  hundred  pages.  Each 
succeeding  volume  grew  steadily  thinner  after  the  as 
cendency  of  Newcastle,  and  after  1737  they  were  re 
duced  to  quartos,  and  in  some  cases  only  one  hundred 
fifteen  pages  of  this  were  used  in  a  year.53  The  rec 
ords  for  each  province  show  the  same  dearth  of  busi 
ness.  This  change  is  not  directly  chargeable  to  the 
personnel  of  the  Board,  but  must  be  ascribed  to  the 
pernicious  interference  of  Newcastle.  The  powers  of 
the  Board  were  nominally  the  same  as  before ;  but,  as 
Halifax  says,  the  Board  had  been  given  to  understand 

52  Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  vol.  xxxviii,  196.     For  the  neglect 
of  colonial  affairs,  see  the  New  York  Colonial  Documents  for  the  period. 
The  absence  of  any  correspondence  worth  noting  speaks  for  itself.     It  was 
such  periods  as  the  above  which  justified  Pownall's  comment,  "at  one  time 
it  hath  had  the  powers,   and  held  the  part  of  a  minister's  office;   and   at 
another,  hath  become  a  mere  committee ;   inefficient  as  to  execution ;  unat 
tended  to,  as  reporting.     The  colonies,  and  the  officers  of  the  colonies,  have 
one  while  been  taught  to  look  up  to  the  Board,  as  the  minister  for  their 
affairs:  and   at  another,  have  learned  to  hold  it  in  that  contempt,  which 
inefficiency   gives;     which    contempt,   however,    hath   not    always   stopped 
there."  —  Administration  of  the  British  Colonies,  vol.  i,  27. 

53  Journal  for  1738.     The  average  from  1737-1748  was  about  one  hun 
dred  thirty  of  the  small  pages.     The  earlier  volumes  contain  four  hundred 
or  five  hundred  pages  of  folio. 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  BOARD  37 

that  the  chief  business  was  to  be  referred  to  the  secre 
tary  of  state's  office.54  That  remained  the  situation 
until  1751  when  Halifax  insisted  upon  doing  the  full 
work  assigned  to  the  Board  by  the  commission. 

During  the  foregoing  period,  there  were  a  few  men 
of  real  ability  who  served  as  individual  members.  One 
of  the  best  known  of  these  was  Daniel  Pulteney,  who 
served  during  the  years  1717-1721.  He  had  been 
envoy  to  Denmark  in  the  reign  of  Queen  Anne,  and 
had  displayed  marked  ability  as  a  diplomat  and,  after 
his  service  on  the  Board,  was  transferred  to  the  admir 
alty  office.  He  was  a  member  of  Parliament  and  in 
politics  a  close  supporter  of  Sunderland.55  Paul  Doc- 
minique  (1714-1735)  was  another  very  active  mem 
ber.  Having  been  an  early  member  of  the  West  Jer 
sey  Society,  he  always  took  a  lively  interest  in  New 
York  and  New  Jersey  affairs,  was  nearly  always  pres 
ent  when  the  Board  considered  matters  of  interest  to 
those  colonies,  and  his  name  is  found  on  nearly  all 
the  documents  which  concern  them.56 

The  most  active  member,  however,  was  Martin 
Bladen,  who  has  the  distinction  of  enjoying  the  longest 
continuous  service  of  any  man  who  ever  served  on  the 
Board.  For  nearly  thirty  years,  he  discharged  his 

54  Halifax  to  Newcastle,  August  25,  1751.     "Those  powers  in  the  com 
mission  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  contained  in  the  first  and  second  clauses  of 
ye  inclosed  extract,  of  representing  to  the  king  upon  all  matters  relating  to 
trade  and  plantations,  of  recommending  what  may  be  proper  to  be  passed 
in  the  Assemblies,  of  hearing  complaints  of  oppressions  and  male- adminis 
tration  and  representing  thereupon,  have  not  for  many  years  been  exercised, 
the  Board  having  been  given  to  understand  that  they  should  represent  only 
on  such  points  as  should  be  referred  to  them  by  ye  secretary  of  state  or  the 
council."  —  British  Museum  Additional  Manuscripts,  32725,  f.  91. 

55  Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  vol.  xlvii,  24. 

56  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  51  and  note,  and  passim. 


38         AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

duties  faithfully,  both  as  a  member  of  the  Board  and 
as  a  member  of  Parliament.  He  was  very  regular  in 
his  attendance  at  the  Board  meetings,  and  his  name  is 
affixed  to  most  of  its  representations.57  He  frequently 
spoke  on  questions  of  trade,  commerce,  and  colonial 
affairs  in  the  House  of  Commons;  and  because  of  his 
attention  to  business,  he  was  known  as  "Trade,"  while 
his  colleagues  were  referred  to  collectively  as  the 
"Board."  In  politics  he  was  a  close  adherent  of  Wai- 
pole.58 

Joseph  Addison  (1715-1717)  was  another  very  well 
known  member  during  the  early  part  of  the  period; 
but  his  period  of  service  was  too  short  to  enable  him 
at  all  to  mould  the  policy  of  the  Board,  even  if  he  had 
displayed  any  particular  interest  in  colonial  affairs. 
His  appointment  must  be  looked  upon,  not  as  a  reward 
for  merit,  but  as  a  reward  for  political  service.59 
Thomas  Hay,60  Viscount  Dupplin  (1746-1754)  was 
a  much  abler  man  in  administrative  matters.  He  had 
great  parliamentary  influence,  was  especially  interest 
ed  in  Nova  Scotia,  usually  spoke  on  money  matters, 
and  is  said  to  have  refused  the  position  of  chancellor 
of  the  exchequer  in  1757.  He  was  much  talked  of  as 
a  successor  to  Halifax  as  head  of  the  Board,  and 
helped  to  form  the  Newcastle  ministry  of  1758. 

57  During  the  ten  years,  1732  to  1742,  he  was  present  at  nine  hundred 
seventy-eight  different  meetings  of  the  Board  and  on  seventeen  occasions  he 
was  the  only  member  present.     His  absence  when  it  occurred  was  usually 
consecutive,  indicating  sickness  or  pressure  of  other  duties.  —  Board  of  Trade 
Journals,  42-51. 

58  Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  vol.  ii,  154;  New  York  Colonial 
Documents,  vol.  iii,  pp.  xvi,  xvii;  Cobbett,  Wm.  Parliamentary  History. 

59  Dictionary  of  National  Biography,   New  York  Colonial  Documents, 
vol.  iii,  p.  xvi. 

60  Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  vol.  vi,  762. 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  BOARD  39 

With  the  year  1748,  the  Board  enters  upon  a  new 
period  in  its  history.  The  change  was  due  to  the  ap 
pointment  of  George  Dunk,  Earl  of  Halifax,  as  pres 
ident.  On  the  death  of  Monson,  Newcastle  sought  to 
have  his  brother-in-law,  the  Duke  of  Leeds,  appoint 
ed  to  the  vacancy,  as  he  was  anxious  to  have  him  in 
some  office  which  required  little  attendance  and  less 
application.  In  this,  however,  he  was  balked  by  Bed 
ford  who  insisted  upon  having  an  able  man  at  the  head 
of  the  Board.61  His  choice  was  Halifax  and  an  ar 
rangement  was  finally  made  satisfactory  to  all.  The 
Duke  of  Leeds  took  the  position  of  chief  justice  in 
eyre,  which  Halifax  then  held  and  which  required 
little  or  no  work,  and  Halifax  came  to  the  Board.62 
Bedford  admits  that  his  reason  for  desiring  Halifax 
was  partly  selfish,  as  the  Board  was  under  the  South 
ern  Department  of  which  he  was  secretary.  Another 
reason,  however,  was  the  pretty  definite  conclusion  on 
the  part  of  both  Newcastle  and  Bedford  that  the  colo 
nial  situation  was  such  as  to  require  the  attention  of 
an  able  man.63 

61  Bedford  to  Newcastle,  August  n,  1748,  British  Museum  Additional 
Manuscripts,  32716,  f.  38. 

62  His  commission  bears  the  date  of  November  5,  1748.     Board  of  Trade 
Journal,  56,  p.  269.     He  was  sworn  to  the  Privy  Council,  January  n,  1749. 
See:  Privy  Council  Register,  "George  II,"  vol.  iv,  137. 

63  After  referring  to  the  conditions  described  above,  Bedford  in  offering 
the  position  to  Halifax  says:     "I  took  the  liberty   (tho'  I  had  not  had  an 
opportunity  of  knowing  ye  sentiments  upon  it)  to  mention  your  Lordship  to 
Mr.  Pelham  as  one  whom  I  thought,  on  account  of  ye  application  to,   and 
abilities  in  business  the  proper  person  to  be  put  at  the  head  of  a  board 
which  has  under  its  care   and  inspection  business  of  the  highest  national 
concern,  and  which  has  always  had  at  its  head,  and  more  particularly  in  ye 
last  instance,  persons  of  great  consideration  and  worth. 

"There  were  two  other  reasons  which  induced  me  to  take  the  liberty  —  to 
mention  you  as  ye  properest  person  I  could  think  of  for  this  employment,  the 


40         AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

Halifax  came  into  his  new  office  with  little  or  no 
knowledge  of  colonial  affairs  or  of  trade;  but  his  en 
ergy  and  zeal,  together  with  his  ambition,  soon  sup 
plied  the  deficiency.  He  belonged  to  the  new  gener 
ation  of  opponents  of  Walpole.  Although  he  allied 
himself  with  Newcastle,  he  had  sufficient  wealth  and 
parliamentary  influence  to  make  his  position  one  of 
more  than  usual  independence;  and  in  the  shifting 
politics  of  the  next  few  years  his  support  became  more 
and  more  essential  to  that  politician.  When  he  ac 
cepted  the  position  as  head  of  the  Board,  he  exacted 
no  promises  as  to  the  power  which  that  body  should 
exercise,  nor  were  any  given  him.64  He  was  hardly 
familiar  with  his  new  duties,  however,  before  he  be 
gan  to  insist  upon  an  extension  of  his  power,  and  so 
far  as  conditions  permitted,  made  his  influence  felt.65 
The  settlement  of  Halifax,  Nova  Scotia,  in  1749  by 
discharged  sailors  and  seamen  was  largely  due  to  his 

one  was,  that  I  look  upon  it  as  a  post  of  business  and  useful  business  and  a 
good  qualification  for  better  and  greater  things;  and  the  other  (which  I 
own  has  a  little  the  air  of  selfishness)  was  my  desire  to  have  a  person  of  ye 
Lordship's  weight  and  consequence  and  for  whom  I  have  so  true  a  regard, 
at  the  head  of  a  Board  with  which  in  my  present  situation  as  Secretary  of 
State  for  ye  Southern  Department  I  must  have  so  close  and  frequent  corre 
spondence.  I  am  now  authorized  by  His  Majesty's  command  to  offer  this 
employment  to  your  Lordship,  which  if  you  shall  think  proper  to  accept,  the 
king  designs  the  Chief  Justice  in  Eyre  for  ye  Duke  of  Leeds. 

"Mr.  Pelham  informs  me  that  the  salary  of  ye  first  Lord  of  Trade  is  the 
same,  as  to  all  the  rest,  viz.  £1000  a  year,  but  that  the  first  Lord  has  always 
been  paid  by  him  £500  a  year  additional.  He  is  willing  either  to  continue 
it  on  this  footing  or  to  make  £500  addition  to  the  salary  which  ever  you 
shall  chuse."  —  Bedford  to  Halifax,  September  3,  1748,  British  Museum 
Additional  Manuscripts,  32716,  f.  337. 

64  Halifax  to  Bedford,  September  7,   1748,  British  Museum  Additional 
Manuscripts,  32716,  f.  339. 

65  Letters  of  F.  J.  Paris  to  James  Alexander,  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol. 
vii,  295. 


BEDFORD'S  MOST  SECRET  LETTER  TO 

[British  Museum  Additional  Manuscripts,  32716,  /  38] 


flj»fi  wrU  M  i*  emf&<6f,p  v>  #u  *«ut*/  dd^ti* 


*ou,  rnetn,  7j  ty  v/j»fi  wr      M  i*  emf<f,p  v>  #u  *«ut 

urtrf  $r«Ae<  W  '  h*  $&*  J  M»//  to*  &**/+*  &*}** 

jyei?fi£67>t  aAhrwi  ft  fiu.  6  &,  /£t   £X*£t4///tr/  A  S*j 
Mat*  A  */e 


ttfur 


v,*  .   *** 

A**t  jsyt/eJ  /*  //<•  '   V<XA^» 
//r/lL  JtJt  t/d"&  &  '<***  "•&  "  «  '-M  +'**&/££  ££ 


</rl*A  .^       *  freo.usn.  . 

•  '     •  '  '  '  •  '    / 

^.4l^.'fi*4&™ 


/tvdJte  $t  JjfActfJ/  &  OA  6  //AJ/r*S  v/ttur  */'***/*£  /t  ttret 

*  fly/'//**'*'/  •/<*»#  6*4 


•• 
^ 

eft**  WlS&jU*  Mt>tj  ffffr  *Jf  fff*M/Af  yf"*J\ 


is 

MAtff 


>* 
jMjtirfi 


/u*ff  Se  $skA&  £6 


/wrt&S  M**/'*  «**/* 

//  ff  **s 


V         V 


\ 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  BOARD  47 

enterprise,  and  his  services  were  recognized  in  naming 
the  new  city.  Colonial  affairs  everywhere  received 
more  attention  than  they  had  for  years.  Affairs  in 
New  York  and  in  New  Jersey  were  in  a  chaotic  condi 
tion  and  had  been  steadily  growing  worse.  A  careful 
investigation  was  undertaken  of  the  dispatches  which 
had  been  left  unnoticed  in  the  office  during  the  preced 
ing  years,  and  the  true  condition  of  affairs  in  those 
provinces  was  laid  before  the  ministry.  All  the  work 
and  records  of  the  Board  show  new  life  and  vigor,  and 
everything  indicates  that  for  the  first  time  in  years  an 
efficient  man  was  at  the  head  of  affairs.66 

No  energetic  man,  however,  could  have  been  in 
duced  to  remain  long  at  the  head  of  the  Board  under 
the  conditions  existing  when  Halifax  was  appointed. 
The  commission  conferred  upon  the  Board  full  power 
over  colonial  affairs,  but  for  years  it  had  been  given  to 
understand  that  all  questions  of  importance  should  be 
referred  to  the  secretary  of  state  and  that  no  report 
or  representation  was  to  be  made  on  any  matter  which 
had  not  been  definitely  referred  to  it  either  by  the 
secretary  of  state  or  by  the  council.67  That  rule  left 
the  Board  only  a  shadow  of  its  real  powers,  and,  how 
ever  efficient  a  president  was,  he  could  accomplish 
nothing  so  long  as  that  condition  persisted.  Halifax 
determined  to  have  conditions  changed  or  to  resign, 
and  wrote  to  Newcastle  that  he  wished  to  be  released 
from  the  very  disagreeable  situation  in  which  he  found 

66  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  vii,  745,  footnote  and  passim ; 
Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  vol.  iii,  363;  Walpole,  Horace.  Letters, 
vol.  i,  137,  181,  324,  vol.  ii,  367,  vol.  iii,  49,  58,  373;  Mahon,  Lord.  History 
of  England  from  the  Peace  of  Utrecht  to  the  Peace  of  Versailles,  1713-1783, 
vol.  iv,  passim  and  vol.  v,  28 ;  Grenville  Papers,  vol.  ii,  427,  vol.  iii,  221-222. 

67  See  footnote  54, 


48         AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

himself.68  As  his  support  could  not  be  dispensed  with, 
this  resignation  was  not  accepted,  and  Newcastle  be 
gan  to  arrange  terms  which  Halifax  could  accept. 

Halifax  was  frankly  ambitious  for  a  seat  in  the 
cabinet  or  even  higher  honors,  and  made  full  use  of 
his  position  as  head  of  the  Board  to  secure  the  coveted 
prize.  The  political  situation  in  England  contrib 
uted  to  his  success,  as  his  support  was  becoming  more 
and  more  necessary  to  Newcastle.  When  the  min 
istry  was  reorganized  in  1751,  Halifax  asked  that  he, 
as  president  of  the  Board,  be  made  a  secretary  of  state 
for  the  West  Indies,  or  at  least  that  he  be  admitted 
to  the  cabinet,  and  that  the  Board  should  be  permitted 
to  act  up  to  the  full  measure  of  its  commission  pow 
ers.69  There  was  considerable  delay  in  arranging 
the  terms  upon  which  Halifax  would  continue  in  of- 

68  Halifax  to  Newcastle,  November  28,  1750,  British  Museum  Additional 
Manuscripts,  32723,  f.  312. 

69  "There  is  no  doubt  but  that  the  first  Commissioner  of  Trade,  being 
admitted  to  frequent  access  to  the  king  on  all  plantation  matters  would  be  ye 
most  eligible  method.     I  therefore  hope  your  Grace  will  propose  it,  and  that 
at  will  not  be  objected  to. 

"But  if  this  method  should  fail  and  your  Grace  should  agree  in  opinion 
•with  my  Lord  Granville  that  ye  publick  end  may  be  answer'd  by  ye  Com 
missioners  of  Trade  being  suffer'd  to  act  up  to  the  letter  of  their  commis 
sion,  by  presenting  to  the  Council  the  names  of  proper  people  to  be  employ'd 
as  governors,  deputy  governors,  secretarys,  etc.,  and  by  taking  cognizance  of 
the  government  of  the  colonies,  (for  which  end  two  new  instructions  to  the 
governors  will  be  necessary). 

"That  I  may  neither  seem  impracticable  nor  bigotted  to  my  own  opinion, 
I  am  willing  to  submit  to  His  Majesty's  pleasure,  and  to  try  whether  I  can 
serve  with  publick  utility  and  satisfaction  to  myself  on  this  new  footing. 

"Provided  I  have  the  honour  of  being  appointed  a  Cabinet  Counsellor, 
with  such  additional  salary  as  His  Majesty  shall  think  proper;  and  that  it 
be  fully  understood  by  His  Majesty's  ministers  that  I  shall  have  the  same 
weight  in  all  plantation  matters  as  if  by  my  post  I  had  frequent  access  to 
his  Majesty." -Halifax  to  Newcastle,  August  6,  1751,  British  Museum 
Additional  Manuscripts,  32725,  f.  i. 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  BOARD  49 

fice.  Newcastle  says  the  king  opposed  his  admission 
to  the  cabinet  because  that  body  was  already  too 
large.70  Finally  Halifax  agreed  to  accept  the  powers 
of  a  secretary  of  state  without  the  honor  of  a  portfolio, 
and  dictated  the  provisions  of  the  Order  in  Council 
which  transferred  all  colonial  business,  including  the 
patronage,  to  the  Board.71  He  had  now  secured  the 
powers  of  a  secretary  of  state,  and  he  at  once  demand 
ed  72  and  received  the  salary  of  one,73  but  he  was  still 
denied  the  public  recognition  he  coveted,  and  which 
he  was  still  determined  to  have. 

Newcastle  evidently  promised  to  aid  him  in  his  am 
bitions,  but  failed  to  keep  his  promises;  consequently 

70  Newcastle  to  Halifax,  November  7,  1751,  British  Museum  Additional 
Manuscripts,  32725,  f.  378. 

71  The  proposals  which  formed  the  basis  for  the  Order  in  Council  are 
included  in  a  letter  of  Halifax  to  Newcastle,  January  5,  1752.    These  were 
laid  before  the  Privy  Council,  went  through  the  regular  course,  and  ap 
peared  as  an  Order  in  Council,  March  n,  1752.     Admiralty  and  revenue 
officers   were   not  included    in  the   patronage   of  the  Board.     See:   British 
Museum  Additional  Manuscripts,   32726,    f.    22;    Privy   Council  Register, 
"George  II,"  vol.  xiii,  467,  511;  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  60. 

72  If  my  friends  had  succeeded  in  the  application  to  His  Majesty  that 
I  might  be  called  to  the  Cabinet  Council,  it  must  have  been  understood  that 
a  cabinet  councillor's  salary  would  have  attended  it.     The  honour,  however, 
was  the  principal  thing  I  had  in  view,  and  I  would  have  accepted  it  (as 
Mr.   Pelham   knows)    without   any   additional   pecuniary   emolument.     His 
Majesty  was  pleased  to  object  to  my  being  a  cabinet  councillor;  but  from 
the  refusal  of  this  mark  of  His  Majesty's  favour,  it  cannot,  I  apprehend, 
be  inferred  that  I  am  of  course  to  be  refused  every  other.     Some  sort  of 
one  is  necessary  for  my  credit  in  the  execution  of  the  office,  with  which  His 
Majesty  has  entrusted  me;  and  no  mark  of  the  royal  favour  is  more  obvious 
than  such  an  augmentation  of  salary  as  would  have  been  given,  if  I  had 
been  called  to  the  Cabinet  Council.  —  Halifax  to  Newcastle,  March  26,  1752, 
British  Museum  Additional  Manuscripts,  32726,  f.  338. 

73  A   paper   in    the    Newcastle    correspondence   entitled    "Considerations 
with  Respect  to  the  Matter  of  appointing  a  Secretary  of  State  for  Planta 
tion  Affairs"  states  that  the  salary  of  Halifax  as  president  of  the  Board  was 
£3850  a  year.     See:  British  Museum  Additional  Manuscripts,  33029,  f.  104. 


50         AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

Halifax  resigned  in  I756,74  but  was  again  induced  to 
remain  in  office.  The  next  year  he  refused  to  serve 
any  longer  under  such  unsatisfactory  conditions 75  and, 
as  his  services  were  indispensable,  he  was  admitted  to 
the  cabinet.  This  made  him  virtually  a  secretary  of 
state  for  the  colonies,  in  which  capacity  he  continued 
to  serve  until  1761,  when  he  resigned  to  go  to  Ireland 
as  lord-lieutenant.  His  dominating  influence  in  colo 
nial  affairs  is  noticeable,  however,  for  some  years 
afterward.  During  his  presidency  the  Board  occu 
pied  a  very  different  position  from  that  which  it  had 
ever  before  held  in  its  history.  Although  it  was  still 
nominally  a  collegiate  body,  the  president  was  either 
a  secretary  of  state  or  exercised  all  or  most  of  the  pow 
ers  of  one.  This  change  had  been  brought  about  by 
two  causes:  the  increased  importance  of  colonial  af 
fairs,  and  the  energy  and  ambition  of  one  man,  backed 
by  the  political  influence  he  was  able  to  wield  in  Par 
liament.  It  is  a  striking  fact  that  this  revolution  in 
the  Board's  position  was  accomplished  without  any 
change  in  the  terms  of  the  commission. 

Halifax  was  assisted  by  some  able  colleagues,  a  few 
of  whose  appointments  dated  back  to  1746.  One  of 
these  was  Dupplin,  already  mentioned.  Another  was 
James  Grenville,  an  adherent  of  William  Pitt  and  a 
brother  to  George  Grenville  and  Richard,  Earl  of 
Temple,  who  continued  on  the  Board  till  1755.  Still 
another  able  man  was  the  former  attorney  for  the 
Board,  Francis  Fane.  From  his  long  years  of  expe 
rience  as  legal  adviser  on  colonial  laws,  he  should 

74Walpole,  Horace.  Letters,  vol.  iv,  u,  64,  66. 

75  Halifax  to  Newcastle,  June  16,  1757,  British  Museum  Additional 
Manuscripts,  32871,  f.  323. 


HALIFAX  RESIGNS  THE  PRESIDENCY 
[British  Museum  Additional  Manuscripts,  32871,  /  323] 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  BOARD  53 

have  been  especially  well  qualified  to  give  efficient 
service. 

Halifax  also  brought  in  men  who  were  his  own  fol 
lowers,  among  whom  Charles  Townshend  was  the 
ablest  and  best  known.  He  had  entered  Parliament 
in  1747,  and  had  from  the  first  attached  himself  to 
Halifax.  When  the  latter  came  to  the  Board,  Town 
shend  was  soon  given  a  place  and  continued  in  office 
for  nearly  five  years.  He  was  ambitious,  and  a  man 
of  remarkable  ability.  Halifax  relied  much  upon 
him  and  with  reason,  for  he  was  one  of  the  few  men 
who  really  made  a  name  for  himself  as  a  member  of 
the  Board.  On  his  retirement,  he  found  a  place  on 
the  admiralty  board.  He  continued  to  rise  in  par 
liamentary  power  and  was  president  of  the  Board  of 
Trade  for  one  month  in  1763.  Three  years  later,  he 
was  chancellor  of  the  exchequer  and  head  of  the  min 
istry.  It  was  in  the  last  capacity  that  he  made  dan 
gerous  use  of  the  knowledge  he  had  gained  of  colonial 
affairs,  and  brought  forward  the  unfortunate  bills 
which  have  ever  since  borne  his  name.76  William 
G.  Hamilton,  known  as  "single  speech  Hamilton," 
was  another  of  the  able  personal  followers  of  Halifax. 
He  served  from  1756-1761  and  retired  with  Halifax, 
accompanying  the  latter  to  Ireland.77 

Even  during  the  ascendency  of  Halifax,  however, 
all  the  members  were  not  especially  able  men,  nor  nec 
essarily  his  own  lieutenants.  Newcastle's  influence 

76  Walpole,  Horace.  Letters,  passim ;  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol. 
iii,  pp.  xvii,  xviii;  Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  vol.  Ivii,  117;  Gren- 
ville  Papers,  vols.  i,  ii,  iii,  passim ;  Mahon,  Lord.  History  of  England,  vol. 
iv,  27,  218,  249,  vol.  v,  passim',  Lecky,  Wm.  History  of  England,  see  index. 

77  Walpole,  Horace.  Letters,  vol.  iii,  367,  403,  vol.  v,  76,  86,  391 ;  Dic 
tionary  of  National  Biography,  vol.  xxiv,  232. 


54          AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

was  sufficiently  great  to  secure  appointments  when  he 
wished  them,  and  several  of  the  members  continued  to 
be  Newcastle's  favorites.  Andrew  Stone  (1749-1761) 
was  probably  the  best  of  these.  He  had  been  private 
secretary  to  Newcastle  and  was  a  most  active  man  in 
politics,  although  he  worked  behind  the  scenes.  He 
had  been  an  under  secretary  of  state,  and  is  famous 
as  the  tutor  of  George  III.  It  is  said  that  it  was  due 
to  his  unfortunate  influence  that  the  prerogative  took 
on  the  new  growth  which  it  did.  Stone  later  became 
notorious  as  one  of  the  party  known  as  "the  king's 
friends."  78  Other  able  men  who  represented  the 
Newcastle  influence  were  Edward  Bacon  (1759- 
1765)  and  George  Rice  (1761-1770).  The  less 
worthy  satellites  of  leading  ministers  were  present 
during  the  entire  period:  Richard  Rigby79  (1755- 
1760),  an  unblushing  placeman,  who  supported  vari 
ous  interests  and  so  managed  to  maintain  himself  in 
some  position  of  profit;  Edward  Elliott80  (1760 
1776),  who  owed  his  position  to  the  fact  that  he  had 
vast  borough  influence  at  his  command;  and  John 
Roberts81  (1761-1762),  formerly  secretary  to  Henry 
Pelham  and  dispenser  of  the  secret  service  money 
which  was  used  so  largely  for  corrupt  purposes,  were 
the  most  noted  of  these. 

On  the  retirement  of  Halifax  in   1761,   Samuel 

78  Walpole,  Horace.  Letters,  vol.  i,  318,  footnote,  vol.  ii,  257,  259,  vol.  iii, 
46,  104,  135,  137,  140,  213;  Mahon,  Lord.  History  of  England,  vol.  iv,  21, 
22;  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iii,  p.  xvii,  vol.  vi,  753,  footnote; 
Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  vol.  liv,  405. 

79  Walpole,  Horace.  Letters,  see  index;   Grenville  Papers,  vols.  iii,  iv, 
passim ;  Mahon,  Lord.  History  of  England,  vol.  iv,  126,  vol.  v,  40,   259 ; 
Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  vol.  xlviii,  302. 

80  Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  vol.  xvii,  184. 

81  —  Ibid.,  vol.  xlviii,  384. 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  BOA&D  55 

Sandys  was  made  president  of  the  Board  and  contin 
ued  in  office  for  two  years.  He  was  a  man  of  little 
real  ability,  had  risen  into  importance  only  because 
of  his  opposition  to  Walpole,  and  his  influence  rapidly 
waned  after  that  statesman's  fall.  Horace  Walpole 
speaks  of  him  as  a  member  of  a  dish-clout  ministry,82 
and  adds  that  the  Board  of  Trade  was  to  be  reduced  to 
its  former  insignificance  and  that  he  was  not  to  get 
the  extra  thousand  pounds  a  year  which  had  been 
granted  to  Halifax.83  This  was  carried  out  only  in 
part.84  Colonial  affairs  were  too  important,  at  that 
particular  time,  for  the  Board  to  be  reduced  to  its 
former  impotence ;  although  the  most  important  bus 
iness  was  transferred  to  the  secretary  of  state's  office, 
and  orders  to  that  effect  were  sent  to  the  colonial  gov 
ernors. 

Sandys  was  replaced  by  Townshend  who,  within  a 
month,  gave  way  to  William  Fitzmaurice  Petty,  Earl 
of  Shelburne.  The  latter  had  acted  as  peacemaker  in 
the  negotiations  which  brought  Bute  and  Fox  togeth 
er,  had  helped  form  the  Grenville  ministry,  and  would 
have  been  made  secretary  of  state  for  the  colonies  at 
that  time  had  Grenville  not  opposed  it.  He  finally 
accepted  the  presidency  of  the  Board  as  a  substitute, 
and  with  it  was  given  a  seat  in  the  cabinet.  He  soon 
quarreled  with  his  colleagues,  resigned  from  the 

82  Walpole,  Horace.  Letters,  vol.  iii,  379. 

83  Walpole,  Horace.  Letters,  vol.  v,   36,  also  see  index;  Dictionary  of 
National  Biography,  vol.  1,  293 ;  Mahon,  Lord.  History  of  England,  vol.  iii, 
68,  no,  112. 

84  The   Order  in  Council  was  issued,  May  15,   1761,   and   repealed  so 
much  of  the  rule  of  1752  as  vested  appointments  in  the  Board,  but  directed 
that  correspondence  between  the  Board  and  colonial  governors  should  con 
tinue  as  directed  in  1752.     See:  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  vol.  Ixxix,  265. 


56         AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

Board,  attached  himself  again  to  Pitt,  and  on  the  lat- 
ter's  return  to  office  was  made  secretary  for  the  South 
ern  Department,  August,  1766.  As  such,  he  again  had 
charge  of  colonial  affairs  and  did  all  he  could  to  con 
ciliate  the  colonies,  being  always  opposed  to  coercive 
measures.  Hillsborough,  who  had  followed  Shel- 
burne  as  president  of  the  Board,  was  replaced  for  a 
brief  time  by  Dartmouth,  but  again  came  into  office 
at  the  time  Shelburne  was  made  secretary  of  state.  At 
Hillsborough's  own  request,  however,  the  Board  was 
again  shorn  of  its  executive  powers  .and  reduced  to 
one  of  report  only;85  thus  the  entire  responsibility  for 
the  American  policy  was  thrown  upon  Shelburne.  As 
the  latter  was  unable  to  get  on  well  with  his  colleagues, 
and  as  they  were  out  of  sympathy  with  his  American 
policy,  he  was  relieved  by  raising  Hillsborough  to  the 
full  rank  of  secretary  of  state  for  the  colonies,  thus 
ending  Shelburne's  control  over  colonial  affairs.  Very 
soon  after  that  event  Shelburne  resigned  from  office 
and  joined  the  opposition  (October,  1768). 86 

Hillsborough's  colonial  policy  during  his  first  term 
of  service  (1763-1765)  was  marked  by  more  than 
usual  rigor,  and  colonial  laws  had  to  be  transmitted 

85  "I  resolved  to  accept,  provided  the  Board  should  be  altered  from  a 
Board  of  Representation  to  a  Board  of  Report  upon  reference  only ;  that  the 
order  of  the  governors  in  America  to  correspond  with  the  Board  of  Trade 
only,  should  be  rescinded;   and  that  every  executive  business  that  has  by 
degrees  crept  into  the  Board  should  revert  to  the  proper  offices,  particularly 
all  treasury  business;  and  that  I  should  not  be  of  the  cabinet  (which  was 
also  offered  me).     In  this  manner,  which  has  been  agreed  to  I  have  accepted 
the  office."  —  Letter  of  Hillsborough  to  Grenville,  August  6,  1766,  Grenville 
Papers,  vol.  iii,  294-296. 

86  Fitzmaurice,  Edmund.  Life  of  Shelburne,  vol.  i,  239,  241,  243,  245, 
259,  vol.  ii,  2-3 ;  Greninlle  Papers,  vol.  ii,  5,  38,  51 ;  Mahon,  Lord.  History 
of  England,  vol.  v,  27,  29,  41,  159,  203,  209,  235;  Dictionary  of  National 
Biography,  vol.  xlv,  119. 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  BOARD  57 

with  a  promptness  hitherto  unknown.87  As  secretary  of 
state  for  the  colonies,  Hillsborough  stood  for  the  full 
est  exercise  of  the  prerogative,  was  responsible  for  the 
aggressive  policy  of  the  British  government  toward 
the  colonies,  and  demanded  the  most  vigorous  repres 
sive  measures.88  He  resigned  his  position  as  secretary 
of  state  in  1772  because  he  could  not  consent  to  the  set 
tlement  of  the  Ohio  country;  hence  he  must  have 
looked  upon  his  western  policy  as  essential  to  the  prop 
er  carrying  on  of  colonial  affairs.89 

Political  position  and  terms  of  service  of  members 

Under  the  English  parliamentary  system,  the  Board 
of  Trade  was  very  naturally  subject  to  change  with 
the  change  in  ministries.  It  has  already  been  pointed 
out  how  Stamford  was  dismissed  from  office  on  the 
accession  of  Anne.  On  the  change  of  ministry  in 

1705,  three  additional  members  were  changed,  and  the 
same  was  true  when  Sunderland  replaced  Hedges  in 

1706.  Stamford  again  went  out  of  office  in  171 1  for 
political  reasons,  and  when  Bolingbroke  acquired  the 

87  See  Calvert's  letters  to  Governor  Sharpe  of  Maryland  urging  him  to 
transmit  copies  of  the  laws  passed  in  that  colony,  in  Sharpe's  Correspond 
ence,  vol.  iii. 

88  This  attitude  is  well  summed  up  by  Junius,  vol.  iii,  172.     "In  his  new 
department,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  he  has  shown  neither  abilities  nor  good  sense. 
His  letters  to  the  colonies  contain  nothing  but  expression  equally  loose  and 
violent.     .     .     This  treatment  of  the  colonies,  added  to  his  refusal  to  present 
a  petition  of  one  of  them  to  the  king   (a  direct  breach  of  the  Declaration 
of  Rights)    will  naturally  throw  them  all   into   a   flame.     .     .     The  other 
ministers  were  proceeding  in  their  usual  course,  without  foreseeing  or  re 
garding  consequences;  but  this  nobleman  seems  to  have  marked  out  by  a 
determined   choice   the   means   to    precipitate   our   destruction."  —  Grenville 
Papers,  vol.  iii,  pp.  lii-liii. 

89  Grenville  Papers,  vols.  iii,  iv,  passim ;  Mahon,  Lord.  History  of  Eng 
land,  vol.  v,  41,  185,  236-240,  320;  Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  vol. 
xxvi,  437. 


58          AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

ascendency  two  years  later,  the  Board  was  almost  reor 
ganized,  no  fewer  than  four  members  being  changed. 
It  also  has  been  pointed  out  that  at  the  close  of  Queen 
Anne's  reign  the  Board  had  become  just  as  exclusively 
Tory  as  the  first  one  had  been  exclusively  Whig.  On 
the  accession  of  George  I  and  the  return  of  the  Whigs 
to  power,  there  was  an  entire  change  in  the  personnel 
of  the  Board.90  After  that,  changes  were  a  little  less 
sweeping,  but  the  reason  is  evident:  changes  in  minis 
tries  were  essentially  changes  within  a  single  political 
party  and  usually  meant  only  a  readjustment  of  per 
sonal  followings,  and  men  who  had  been  in  a  dis 
charged  ministry  frequently  found  comfortable  berths 
in  the  one  that  succeeded  to  power. 

Every  important  change  in  ministry  meant  consid 
erable  changes  in  the  Board.91  Thus  in  1742  when 
Walpole  was  finally  forced  to  resign,  three  members 
of  the  Board  followed  him  out  of  office,  and  none  of 
these  was  the  president.92  When  the  ministry  was 
reorganized  in  1755,  three  new  men  became  members 
of  the  Board;  John  Pitt  was  dismissed,  James  Gren- 
ville  resigned,  and  Richard  Edgecombe  was  trans 
ferred  to  the  admiralty  board.93  There  were  no  more 
radical  changes  in  the  ministry  until  1761 ;  but,  along 
with  the  numerous  ministerial  changes  of  that  year, 
one  half  the  members  of  the  Board  of  Trade  were 

90  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iii,  pp.  xv-xvi. 

91  Miss  Kellogg  in  her  monograph  on  the  "American  Colonial  Charter," 
in  the  American   Historical  Association  Report  for  1903,  220,  says:  "But 
while  the  fortunes  of  the  presiding  officers  varied  with  the  rise  and  fall  of 
political  ministries,  the  active  working  members  of  the  board  were  seldom 
changed    for   such    reasons."     It   is   impossible    to   reconcile   this   statement 
with  the  facts. 

92  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iii,  p.  xvii. 

sa  —  Ibid. ;  Walpole,  Horace.  Letters,  vol.  iii,  379-381. 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  BOARD  59 

changed.  Halifax  resigned  to  go  to  Ireland;  and 
John  Yorke,  Edward  Thomas,  and  George  Rice  re 
placed  Thomas  Pelham,  William  G.  Hamilton,  and 
William  Sloper,  respectively.94  In  the  readjustment 
of  the  minor  offices  in  1763,  three  members  of  the 
Board,  including  the  president,  were  changed;  and  in 
1765  with  the  formation  of  the  Graf  ton  ministry,  one 
half  of  the  Board  including  the  president  again  lost 
office.95  Such  changes  continued  to  occur  until  the 
Board  was  finally  abolished  in  1782.  It  is  thus  seen 
that  the  Board  of  Trade  was  considered  ministerial  so 
far  as  the  men  who  directed  its  policy  were  concerned, 
and  that  the  positions  of  the  ordinary  working  mem 
bers  were  regarded  as  either  ministerial  or  the  legiti 
mate  spoils  of  victory;  consequently  they  were  also 
subject  to  change  with  the  change  of  party. 

Although  the  positions  on  the  Board  were  political, 
the  tenure  of  office  was  not  so  precarious  as  might  be 
supposed.  Between  the  years  1696-1765  inclusive, 
there  were,  in  all,  ninety-five  separate  appointments. 
Disregarding  fractions  of  years  of  service,  the  aver 
age  tenure  during  this  time  was  just  about  five  years 
for  each  appointment.  The  average  tenure  for  the 
presidents  of  the  Board  was  not  greatly  different. 
There  were  in  all  eighteen  different  administrations, 
counting  interrupted  administrations,  like  that  of 
Stamford  and  that  of  Hillsborough,  as  distinct  periods 
of  service  and  not  as  constituting  a  single  administra 
tion.  This  gives,  as  the  average  term  of  service,  four 
and  nine-tenths  years.  If  the  broken  administration 

94  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iii,  p.  xvii;  Walpole,  Horace. 
Letters,  vol.  v,  36-37. 

95  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iii,  p.  xviii. 


60         AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

of  Stamford  be  considered  as  a  single  administration, 
the  average  is  a  little  more  than  five  years,  which  is 
almost  the  average  tenure  for  the  other  members  of 
the  Board.96 

There  were,  however,  some  remarkable  periods  of 
service  on  the  part  of  some  of  the  members.  Four 
men,  during  the  period  covered  by  this  volume,  served 
continuously  for  periods  of  more  than  twenty  years. 
These  were  Paul  Docminique,  twenty-one  years; 
Thomas  Pelham,  the  elder,  twenty- five  years ;  Edward 
Ashe,  twenty-eight  years;  and  Martin  Bladen,  twenty- 
nine  years.  These  periods  of  service  are  rivalled  by 
that  of  Soame  Jenyns,  who  had  already  served  ten 
years  in  1765,  and  who  continued  to  serve  for  fifteen 
years  after  that  date.  Long  tenure  in  office  does  not 
necessarily  mean  efficiency.  It  should  be  noted  that 
only  one  of  these  men  was  especially  faithful  in  the 
performance  of  his  duties ; 9T  and  he  has  not  left  a  sin 
gle  measure  of  his  own,  which  can  be  called  his  con 
tribution  to  the  colonial  policy  of  the  English  gov 
ernment.98  The  men  of  brains  and  ideas,  the  men  who 
had  definite  opinions  regarding  proper  colonial  poli 
cy,  men  like  Townshend  or  Shelburne,  enjoyed  com 
paratively  short  terms  in  office.  The  very  fact  that  they 
were  active  and  influential  men  meant  their  removal 
when  a  ministry,  to  which  they  were  opposed,  came 
into  office.  The  longest  term  of  office  of  the  president 
was  that  of  Westmoreland,  who  served  for  sixteen 
years;  Halifax,  with  a  tenure  of  thirteen  years,  comes 

90  In  computing  the  above  averages  use  was  made  of  the  data  given  in 
the  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iii,  pp.  xv-xviii. 

97  Martin  Bladen. 

98  Possibly  an  exception  should  be  made  in  favor  of  his  proposal  for  a 
stamp  duty  in  1726. 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  BOARD  61 

second ;  and  the  next  is  Monson,  who  served  for  only 
eleven  years,  and  accomplished  nothing  in  all  that 
time. 

Periods  of  varying  activity 

The  most  casual  examination  of  the  printed  colonial 
records  discloses  that  the  Board  of  Trade  was  very 
much  more  active  in  its  correspondence  at  some  times 
than  it  was  at  others."  No  satisfactory  explanation 
of  this  has  been  given,  nor  can  any  be  had  from  an 
examination  of  the  printed  records  alone.  The  man 
uscript  sources,  however,  throw  some  light  upon  the 
matter. 

As  has  been  stated,  the  Board  had  other  duties  im 
posed  upon  it  in  addition  to  those  of  looking  after  the 
government  of  the  continental  American  colonies.100 
There  were  the  other  colonies,  especially  the  West  In 
dian  group,  which  required  even  more  attention  than 
did  those  on  the  continent.  Then  there  were  the  great 
trading  companies,  and  the  merchants  who  had  com 
plaints  or  demands  to  present.  Last  of  all  the  Board 
was  charged  with  the  consideration  of  England's  trade 
with  the  various  countries.  This  was  not  a  merely 
nominal  duty,  but  involved  a  great  deal  of  hard  work. 
The  various  representatives  of  the  British  government 
reported  to  and  corresponded  with  the  Board  in  much 
the  same  way  as  our  consular  officers  report  to  our 
government  today.  This  material  alone  comprises 
many  volumes,  known  as  the  Commercial  Series  I  and 
//.101  If  one  can  judge  from  their  bulk  and  from  the 

99  See  the  colonial  records  of  New  York,  North  Carolina,  and  New  Jer 
sey  for  illustrations  of  this. 

100  See  page  24. 

101  Series  I  is  made  up  of  in-letters,  memorials,  and  enclosures.     Series 


62         AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

entries  in  the  Journal,  the  business  involved  required 
much  time  and  labor.  To  meet  these  constant  demands 
upon  its  time,  the  Board  arranged  regular  schedules 
for  the  business  of  each  week.  Thus  in  1707,  Tues 
days  and  Thursdays  were  set  aside  for  the  use  of  mer 
chants  and  others  "trading  to  America"  who  desired 
personal  interviews  with  the  Board.102  Ten  years  later 
the  program  had  become  much  more  definite:  viz., 
Mondays  for  reading  letters,  memorials,  petitions, 
etc. ;  Tuesdays  and  Wednesdays  for  plantation  busi 
ness;  Thursdays  for  trade;  and  Fridays  for  the  con 
sideration  of  laws  passed  in  the  plantations.103 

It  would  seem  that  the  regular  routine  business  was 
more  than  enough  to  keep  one  set  of  officials  busy, 
especially  as  some  of  the  public  hearings  required 
several  days ;  but  the  Board  was  frequently  called  upon 
for  extraordinary  work  of  the  most  exacting  character. 
As  it  had  charge  of  all  trade  and  commercial  relations, 
it  was  required  to  consider  all  the  various  commercial 
treaties  that  were  negotiated,10*  was  called  upon  to 
prepare  instructions  for  the  envoys  who  drafted  these 
treaties,105  and  in  some  cases  members  of  the  Board 
were  themselves  sent  as  envoys  to  negotiate  treaties 

II  includes  entry  books  of  out-letters,  representations  to  the  king  or  Council, 
instructions  to  envoys,  etc.  Both  are  in  the  Public  Record  Office  in  London. 

102  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  19,  p.  137. 

103  November  20,  1717,  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  26,  p.  438. 

104  See  the  treatment  of  the  commercial  treaties  with  Sweden  and  the 
States  General  in  1702,  in  Board  of  Trade,  Trade  Entry  Book,  15,  pp.  419, 
427-444  et  seg. ;   the  proposed  commercial  treaty  with  France  in  1712,   in 
Board  of  Trade  Commercial  Series  II,  647,  pp.  3-84;    the  proposed  commer 
cial  treaty  with  Spain  in  1713,  Ibid.,  pp.  404-411;  that^with  Portugal  in 
1714,  Ibid.,  648,  pp.  206-240.     Many  other  references  could  be  cited. 

105  See  the  call  for  information,  June  2,  1709,  C.O.  324,  9,  pp.  294-394; 
the  letter  from  Bolingbroke  to  the  Board  for  instructions  for  the  commis 
sioners  to  treat  with  those  of  France,  July  28,  1714,  Board  of  Trade  Journal, 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  BOARD  63 

of  this  character.106  As  these  treaties  are  among  the 
most  important  any  nation  makes,  and  as  they  are  the 
most  liable  to  be  complained  of  by  the  merchants,  the 
Board  found  its  task  onerous  at  times.107 

Other  treaties  which  were  very  important  and  re 
quired  a  great  amount  of  care  and  research  to  supply 
the  envoys  with  proper  information  in  drafting  were 
those  dealing  with  boundaries.  When  any  treaty 
which  affected  boundaries  or  British  claims  to  terri 
tory  was  being  made,  the  Board  was  required  to  furn 
ish  instructions,  documentary  proof  of  claims,  maps, 
etc.,  in  many  cases  very  voluminous,  for  the  use  of  the 
envoys.108  In  one  important  case,  that  of  the  bounds 
of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  the  southern  limit  of 
49°  as  stated  by  the  Board  has  become  the  northern 
boundary  of  the  United  States.109 

25,  p.  297;  also  instructions  prepared  by  the  Board  for  Daniel  Pulteney  and 
Martin  Bladen,  envoys  to  France,  August  13,  1719,  Ibid.,  29,  p.  135.  The 
following  letter  is  perhaps  most  representative  of  all: 

"Her  Majesty  having  given  directions  for  the  immediate  dispatch  of 
my  Lord  Bingley  to  Spain,  I  am  commanded  to  give  your  Lordships  this 
notice  of  it,  in  order  to  your  preparing  such  draughts  of  instructions  as  you 
may  judge  necessary  to  be  given  his  Lordship,  as  well  on  the  Treaty  of 
Commerce  lately  concluded  between  Her  Majesty  and  the  Catholic  King  as 
on  any  other  matter  relating  to  the  trade  of  this  Kingdom."  —  Bolingbroke 
to  the  Board,  April  27,  1714,  in  Board  of  Trade  Commercial  Series  II,  648, 
p.  189. 

106  Daniel  Pulteney  and  Martin  Bladen  were  envoys  to  France  1719-1720. 
The  latter's  letters  to  the  Board  furnish  a  very  interesting  account  of  the 
speculation  in  Paris  at  the  time  and  of  current  gossip  and  rumor  as  to  the 
operation  of  Law's  company   in   the   Mississippi   country.     See:  Board   of 
Trade  Journal,  29. 

107  See  the  numerous  consultations  with  merchants  in  the  references  cited 
above. 

IDS  Note  what  was  done  in  1700  in  the  negotiations  with  France  in  Board 
of  Trace  Journals,  13,  pp.  19,  70-73;  in  1709  when  a  treaty  was  con 
templated  with  the  same  country,  C.O.  324,  37,  pp.  294-394;  and  when  the 
treaty  was  made  in  1714,  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  24,  p.  277. 

109  August  26,  1719,  the  following  instructions  for  the  envoys  to  France 


64          AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

The  work  of  supplying  information  for  envoys  and 
the  consideration  of  old  treaties  with  the  object  of  ne 
gotiating  new  ones  was,  of  necessity,  badly  distributed, 
as  it  came  in  the  form  of  sudden  demands.  Wars 
abrogated  most  commercial  treaties,  consequently  at 
the  close  of  a  war  there  was  a  great  deal  of  this  treaty 
work  to  be  done.  Especially  was  this  true  after  the 
War  of  the  Spanish  Succession,  when  so  many  com 
mercial  treaties  had  to  be  prepared  and  so  much  in 
formation  of  one  kind  and  another  supplied  that  the 
Board  was  literally  swamped  with  work  of  this  kind 
for  two  years  or  more.  This,  together  with  the  confu 
sion  and  accumulation  of  business  resulting  from  war 
conditions  and  the  change  in  sovereigns,  is  sufficient  to 
explain  the  dearth  of  correspondence  with  the  royal 
governors  between  1713  and  1718.  Letters  were  not 
answered  for  the  simple  reason  that  the  Board  could 
not  get  to  them,  and,  as  they  continued  to  arrive,  a 
considerable  number  of  unanswered  letters  accumu 
lated  in  its  office. 

The  correspondence  was  neglected  for  some  time 
after  1713,  but  this  was  not  wholly  due  to  the  ineffi 
ciency  of  the  Board,  as  its  work  along  other  lines  testi 
fies.  During  this  period  the  Board  wrote  about  one 
letter  a  year  to  each  of  the  governors,  and  stated  that 

were  agreed  to  by  the  Board.  "And  further  that  a  line  be  drawn  from  the 
south  westward  of  the  Island  of  Griminston  or  Cape  Perdria  (so  as  to  in 
clude  the  same  within  the  limits  of  the  bay)  to  the  great  Lake  of  Miscosinke, 
at  Mistovenny,  dividing  the  said  lake  into  two  parts,  and  that  where  the 
said  line  shall  cut  the  49th  degree  of  northern  latitude,  another  line  shall 
begin,  and  be  extended  westward  from  the  said  lake  upon  the  49th  degree 
of  northern  latitude,  over  which  said  line  so  to  be  described  as  above  men 
tioned,  the  French  and  all  persons  by  them  employed  shall  be  prohibited  to 
pass  to  the  northward  of  said  49th  degree  of  latitude."  -  Board  of  Trade 
Journal,  29,  p.  135. 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  BOARD 65 

his  letters  had  not  been  answered  because  of  the  pres 
sure  of  other  business  immediately  referred  to  it  by 
the  king.110  No  doubt  these  statements  are  essentially 
true.  Another  reason  for  the  unusual  delay  is  sug 
gested  in  one  of  the  letters  to  Governor  Spotswood; 
namely,  that  the  Board  lacked  direction  as  to  what  it 
should  do  in  the  case  of  some  of  the  colonies.111 

As  soon  as  the  most  pressing  work  in  regard  to  treat 
ies  was  out  of  the  way,  the  Board  took  up  the  accumu 
lation  of  correspondence.  As  current  business  had  to 
be  taken  care  of,  only  a  small  portion  of  the  Board's 
time  could  be  devoted  to  unanswered  letters.  Those 
which  had  been  received  most  recently  were  consid 
ered  first,  and  the  earlier  ones  taken  up  as  opportunity 
offered.112  In  most  cases  it  had  been  so  long  since  the 
letters  were  written  that  they  did  not  require  an 
answer.  It  was  not  until  1718  that  all  the  letters  re 
ceived  by  the  Board  about  the  close  of  the  war  were 

110  Secretary  Popple  to  Governor  Spotswood,   January   14,   1714,   C.O. 
5,  1364,  p.  23. 

Alexander  Spotswood,  one  of  Virginia's  most  famous  governors,  served 
from  1710  to  1722.  He  was  greatly  interested  in  the  development  of  his 
colony,  assisted  in  improving  the  culture  of  tobacco,  aided  the  cause  of 
education,  and  favored  the  westward  movement  of  population. 

111  Board  to  Spotswood,  August  18,  1715,  C.O.  5,  1364,  p.  236.  In  this  let 
ter  the  receipt  of  eight  letters  from  Spotswood  bearing  the  following  dates  is 
acknowledged:  December  13,  1713;  March  9,  1714;  October  25,  1714;  De 
cember   5,   1714;   January  27,   1715;   March  28,   1715;   June  4,  1715;    and 
November  26,  1715.     None  of  these  was  answered  at  that  time. 

112  June  21,  1715,  the  Board  considered  the  following  letters  from  Gov 
ernor  Hunter:     September  10,  1713;  May  7,  1714;  August  27,  1714;  Octo 
ber  18,   1714;   October  18,   1714;    November  8,   1714;    November  8,   1714; 
November  25,  1714;  March  28,  1715;  March  28,  1715;  April  9,  1715.     See: 
Board  of  Trade  Journal,  25,  pp.  135-138.     November  27,  1717,  the  follow 
ing  were  considered:     June  8,  1711;  June  8,  1717;  October  2,  1716;  Febru 
ary  3,  1717;  April  8,  1717;  May  3,  1717;  May  27,  1717,  and  one  undated. 
See:  Ibid.,  27,  pp.  1-4. 

Correspondence   from  the  other  colonies  was  considered  in   about  the 


66         AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

read.113    After  that,  correspondence  was  attended  to 
with  reasonable  regularity  for  a  time. 

same  way.  None  of  this  delay  can  be  ascribed  to  slowness  in  transmission,  as 
the  following  table  of  letters  from  Governor  Spotswood  [C.O.  5,  1317]  shows: 

DATED  RECEIVED  READ 

November  16,  1713  January  4,  1714  May  16,  1716 

October   25,    1714  December  10,  1714  "       "       " 

November  25,  1714  January   28,    1715  "       "       " 

December  5,    1714  January   28,    1715  "       "       " 

January    27,    1715  April  6,  1715  "       "       " 

March  28,   1715  June  27,  1715  "       "       " 

June  4,  1715  January    16,    1716  "       "       " 

February  16,  1716  April  18,  1716  "       "       " 

May  9,  1716  June  28,  1716  July  10,  1716 

On  June  i,  1716,  the  Board  wrote  to  Spotswood  that  it  had  just  had 
under  consideration  his  letters  of  the  following  dates:  June  2,  August  17, 
September  14,  November  16,  and  December  29,  1713 ;  March  29,  October 
25,  and  December,  1714;  January  27,  March  28,  June  4,  July  15,  August  9, 
and  October  24,  1715;  and  January  16,  1716,  making  fifteen  letters  in  all, 
many  of  them  containing  enclosures,  which  were  considered  and  answered 
at  one  time.  C.O.  5,  1364,  p.  376. 

113  On  June  25   and  26,   1718,  the  Board  cleared  up  the  following  list 
of  letters  from  New  England  [C.O.  5,  915,  pp.  120-158]: 
FROM  DATED 

Lieutenant-governor  of  Mass.  December    30,    1712 

Governor  Dudley  of  Mass.  August  24,  1713 

Secretary  Addington  of  Mass.  August  24,  1713 

Governor  Dudley  of  Mass.  August  25,  1713 

November,  1713 
"       "  December  i,  1713 

"         "        "  July  13,  1714 

Secretary  Addington  of  Mass.  August  16,  1714 

Governor  Dudley  of  Mass.  August  9,    1714 

"        "  August  19,  1714 

October  3,   17i4 

Colonel  Shute  of  Mass.  July    23,    1717 

Lieutenant-governor  of  N.  H.  August  16,  1716 

Governor  Dudley  of  Mass.  July   5,    1715 

June  27,    1715 

"       "  May  7,  1715 

"  "         "        "  May  2,  1715 

Council  of  Mass.  March  2,    1714 

Governor  Dudley  of  Mass.  November   29,    1714 

"        "  November    18,    1714 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  BOARD  67 

The  lack  of  force  in  the  action  of  the  Board,  which 
gradually  appeared  and  culminated  in  1737,  was  due 
to  the  steady  transfer  of  business  from  the  Board  to 
the  secretary  of  state's  office  and  to  the  gradual  decay 
which  resulted  from  lack  of  authority.  A  good  part 
of  the  delay  in  answering  the  letters  of  the  royal  gov 
ernors  after  1730,  however,  was  due  to  downright 
indifference  and  neglect  by  the  Board.  There  was 
no  period  of  excessive  pressure  of  other  business, 
such  as  there  was  immediately  after  1713;  con 
sequently  there  is  no  valid  excuse  for  letters  ly 
ing  in  the  Board's  office  for  a  year  or  more  be 
fore  they  were  read,  neither  is  there  any  reason  why 
it  should  allow  a  period  of  three  years  to  elapse  be 
tween  its  own  letters  to  the  governors  of  the  most  im 
portant  colonies.  Nevertheless  these  things  are  com 
mon  in  the  Board's  records  for  the  period.11'  Its  other 
duties  were  neglected  about  as  badly,  especially  after 
1737,  and  in  no  field  did  it  show  vigor  or  efficiency. 

The  change  which  appears  after  1748  is  due  wholly 
to  the  energy  and  ambition  of  Halifax,  who  recovered 
the  powers  which  had  gradually  been  usurped  by  the 
secretary  of  state,  and  even  acquired  new  ones  which 
the  Board  had  never  before  exercised;  such,  for  in 
stance,  as  the  power  to  appoint  colonial  officials  and 
to  perform  other  executive  functions. 

114  A  letter  from  Lieutenant-governor  Wentworth  of  New  Hampshire 
bears  the  following  endorsement:  "Written  April  2,  1730;  Rec'd.  June  2, 
1730;  Read,  June  9,  1731."  — C.O.  5,  872.  No  letter  was  written  by  the  Board 
to  Lieutenant-governor  Gooch  of  Virginia  from  September  13,  1732,  to 
September  4,  1735.  See:  C.O.  5,  1336,  p.  131.  A  letter  from  the  Board 
to  Governor  Belcher  of  Massachusetts,  dated  September  10,  1735,  acknowl 
edges  the  receipt  of  eighteen  letters  from  him,  covering  a  period  of  two 
years.  See:  C.O.  5,  917,  p.  138. 


68         AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

Office  force 

To  transact  the  voluminous  work  of  the  Board  there 
was  at  first  a  modest  office  force  of  a  secretary  and  five 
clerks.115  As  all  the  work  had  to  be  done  with  the  pen, 
this  force  must  have  been  kept  very  busy  preparing 
the  many  letters,  representations,  commissions,  in 
structions,  and  other  documents  for  which  the  Board 
was  responsible,  to  say  nothing  of  the  numerous  entry 
books  which  had  to  be  kept  up.  Although  the  task 
was  a  heavy  one,  it  was  very  well  done,  as  the  records 
themselves  testify.  This  office  force  was  gradually 
increased  until,  in  1708,  there  were,  besides  the  secre 
tary,  eight  clerks,  one  door  keeper,  two  messengers, 
and  a  "necessary  woman."  The  salaries  paid  were 
small,  ranging  from  five  hundred  pounds  for  the  secre 
tary  to  forty  pounds  for  the  lower  clerks  and  door 
keeper.  The  total  pay  roll  was  one  thousand  one 
hundred  fifty  pounds.116  Even  these  small  salaries 

115  Board  of  Trade  Miscellanies,  u,  pp.  34-38. 

lie  The   following   annual   report   [January  22,   1708,  Board  of  Trade 
Journal,  20,  p.  23]  of  the  office  force  shows  the  salaries  and  personnel  of 
the  entire  establishment: 

"For  himself  as  Secretary  .  .  .  .  .  .     £  500 

Adrian  Drift  Deputy  Secr'y  or  Chief  Clerk  .  100 

Wm.  Barker  Clerk    ....  80 

Bryan    Wheelock 

Maurice  Carroll 

Justinian  Loggan 

Nathaniel  Estwick 

Samuel   Gellibrand 

Matthew   Bertin 

Daniel   Child,   Doorkeeper   .....  40 

Samuel  Clark,  Doorkeeper  and  Assistant  Messenger          .  45 

"     John  Gray,  Messenger  and  Assistant  Doorkeeper  .  .  45 

"     Mary  Wright,  Necessary  Woman  ....  30 

In  all  amounting  to  the  aforesaid  sum  of  ...    £1150" 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  BOARD  69 

were  often  in  arrears,  and  the  Board  was  repeatedly 
petitioned  to  assist  the  clerks  in  getting  their  pay.117 
In  one  of  these  petitions  the  clerks  stated  that  the 
treasury  had  offered  them  a  quarter's  pay  in  "tin 
tallies,"  but  they  could  sell  these  only  at  a  discount. 
The  doorkeeper,  who  received  only  forty-five  pounds 
a  year,  added  that  he  had  paid  out  thirty-four  pounds 
for  coal  and  unless  he  could  get  his  money  "he  would 
be  a  great  loser."  118 

In  spite  of  the  low  salaries  and  the  slow  payments, 
the  clerks  were  probably  not  so  badly  off  as  their 
statements  indicate.  They  state  in  their  petition  that 
"they  had  no  perquisite  or  other  advantages  in  this 
office  or  other  way  of  supporting  themselves,  but  from 
their  salary."  This  statement  is  not  quite  true,  for 
the  general  tipping  system  prevailed  in  England  then 
as  it  does  now;  and  the  man  who  wished  any  work 
done,  even  in  a  public  office,  had  to  pay  for  it.  There 
was  no  direct  charge,  nor  any  fixed  scale  of  fees,  but 
there  were  other  ways  of  making  it  plain  that  the 
clerks  expected  gratuities  for  every  service  rendered. 
There  was  no  secret  about  this,  for  in  lyi^.  the  Board 
found  it  necessary  to  make  a  rule  that  no  clerk  should 
"presume  to  demand  any  money  from  any  person  for 
any  business  done  in  the  office."^  Evidently,  how 
ever,  the  clerks  received  their  customary  fees  without 
demanding  them,  for  the  fee  system  continued  to 
flourish.  This  source  of  revenue  for  the  clerks  was 

117  See  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  12,  pp.  99,  105,  123,  308;  13,  pp.  320, 
424. 

118  Petition  of  the  clerks,  November  17,  1710,  in  Board  of  Trade  Mis 
cellanies,  n,  pp.  465-467. 

119  Order  of  the  Board  respecting  clerks,  salaries,   and  hours  of  work, 
December  20,  1714,  in  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  24,  pp.  242-243. 


70          AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

so  firmly  established  that  they  protested  in  1722 
against  Mr.  West's  clerk  giving  out  copies  of  colonial 
statutes  which  had  been  referred  to  him  by  the  Board 
and  were  awaiting  his  report  in  point  of  law.120  Had 
the  clerks  not  received  extra  pay  for  copies  of  laws, 
they  would  have  been  the  last  persons  to  object  to  a 
clerk  in  another  office  doing  the  work.  The  Board 
recognized  the  legitimacy  of  their  monopoly  over  such 
papers  and  directed  that  in  future  Mr.  West  should 
not  permit  his  clerk  to  give  out  any  copy  of  acts  or 
other  matters  referred  to  him  by  the  Board.121 

From  many  sources  it  is  evident  that  money  was 
necessary  for  the  successful  transaction  of  business  at 
the  Board,  and  that  the  clerks  systematically  increased 
their  small  annual  allowances  by  whatever  opportuni 
ties  fell  in  their  way.  There  is  no  direct  proof  that  the 
members  of  the  Board  themselves  required  these 
money  favors,  but  it  is  plain  that  they  knew  of  the  prac 
tices  of  the  clerks.  They  did,  however,  try  to  keep 
conditions  in  their  office  such  as  not  to  excite  serious 
criticism  or  seriously  to  hamper  the  official  work. 
This  is  seen  in  the  rule  preventing  a  clerk  acting  as 
agent  for  any  American  plantation ; 122  and  the  rules 

120  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  33,  p.  25. 

121  Ordered   by   the   Board,   February    8,    1722.     See:   Board   of   Trade 
Journal,  33,  p.  25. 

122  April  30,  1724,  the  Journal  has  this  entry:     "Their  Lordships  con 
sidering  the  inconvenience  of  any  clerk  in  their  office  acting  as  agent  for  any 
American  plantation  do  hereby  direct,  that  if  any  such  be  employed  as  agents, 
the  secretary  do  acquaint  them  with  this  resolution,  and  dismiss  them  if  they 
continue  to  act  as  such."  — Board  of  Trade  Journal,  34,  p.  no. 

The  next  day  one  of  the  clerks,  a  Mr.  Sanderson,  petitioned  that  he  be 
permitted  to  act  as  agent  for  the  Massachusetts  assembly  until  the  dispute 
between  it  and  the  governor  had  been  settled;  but  the  Board  refused  to 
grant  him  the  indulgence  he  desired.  As  he  continued  as  clerk,  it  is  pre 
sumed  he  resigned  as  agent.  See:  Ibid.,  p.  in. 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  BOARD  71 

as  to  hours  of  service  and  returning  all  papers  to  the 
secretary  before  leaving  the  office.123 

The  line  between  accepting  a  gratuity  for  doing  a 
service  which  should  be  done  without  one,  and  the 
accepting  of  one  for  a  service  which  should  not  be 
rendered  at  all,  is  a  shadowy  one;  but  that  is  the  line 
which  separates  tipping  and  bribery  in  a  public  of 
fice.  That  money  would  secure  any  desired  informa 
tion  as  to  the  position  of  business  in  the  plantation 
office  is  evident  from  the  letters  of  Richard  Partridge 
and  Ferdinando  John  Paris  to  their  American  em 
ployers.124  We  would  call  their  methods  bribery  to 
day;  the  clerks  called  it  accepting  gratuities.  In 
1730  the  Board  considered  conditions  so  serious  that 
they  forbade  the  clerks  demanding  or  accepting  any 
gratuities  for  ordinary  services,  but  did  not  restrain 

123  September   15,   1724.     "The  Board   observing  that  several  books  of 
entry  in  this  office  were  very  much  in  arrears  by  neglect  of  clerks,  their 
Lordships  have  thought  fit  to  order,  that  for  the  future  the  clerks  should 
attend  here  every  day  from  9  a.m.-2  p.m.,  and  as  much  longer  as  the  Board 
shall  at  any  time  sit." 

They  were  also  required  to  attend  evenings,  when  directed  to  do  so  by 
the  secretary,  were  to  deliver  to  him  or  to  the  under  secretary,  before  leaving 
the  office,  all  books  and  papers  in  their  custody,  and  the  secretary  was  ordered 
to  give  an  account  of  the  attendance  of  the  clerks  for  each  week.  Board  of 
Trade  Journal,  34,  pp.  250-251. 

124  Complaint  had  been  made  to  the  Board  that  a  copy  of  a  letter  of 
Governor  Thomas  to  the  Board  had  been  secured  surreptitiously  by  Richard 
Partridge  and  transmitted  to  Philadelphia,  to  the  great  injury  of  the  govern 
or.     The  Board  called  Partridge  before  it,  but  he  refused  to  answer  any 
questions.     He  was  considered  guilty  of  the  charge  and  an  order  was  en 
tered  excluding  him  from  transacting  any  business  before  the  Board  as  agent 
for  any  colony  until   he  had  cleared  his   record.     It  was  further  ordered 
that  no  clerk  should  give  out  any  copies  of  papers  in  the  office  unless  directed 
to  do  so  by  the  secretary,  on  pain  of  immediate  dismissal ;  and  also  that  no 
one  should  be  permitted  to  inspect  books  or  papers  in  the  office  or  to  enter 
the  clerk's  room  without  an  order  from  the  Board.     March  17,  1741,  Board 
of  Trade  Journal,  50,  pp.  30-31. 


72          AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

them  from  receiving  such  reasonable  gratuities  as 
"any  person  shall  think  fit  to  bestow  for  extraordinary 
service"  or  for  copies  of  papers  "made  at  the  request 
of  parties  therein  concerned."  125  This  rule  sounds 
well,  but  it  accomplished  little  more  than  to  bring 
about  the  establishing  of  fixed  fees  for  the  work  of  the 
clerks.  This  was  done  at  the  request  of  Secretary 
Popple,  who  states  in  his  petition  that  the  annexed 
schedule  "is  much  less  than  the  voluntary  gratuities" 
formerly  received.  The  matter  was  settled  in  the 
usual  way  by  an  Order  in  Council 126  which  required 
the  table  of  fees  to  be  posted  in  the  Plantation  Office, 
and  all  other  fees  prohibited.127 

125  August  6,  1730.     The  Board  was  informed  that  several  persons  had 
paid  money  to  their  secretaries  or  clerks  for  their  trouble  in  matters  trans 
acted  in  the  office,  "more  particularly,  on  the  passing  of  commissions  and 
instructions   for  governors,  on   reports   for   appointing  of   councillors,    and 
upon  hearings  before  their  Lordships  in  matters  of  controversy.     As  these 
gratuities  have  been  received  without  their  Lordship's  privity  or  consent, 
who  do  neither  know  nor  allow  of  any  fees  or  gratuities  due,  or  to  be  taken 
for  business  in  their  office."     The  Board  expressed  its  utter  disapproval  of 
the  practice  and  strictly  forbade  its  secretaries,  clerks,  or  other  officers  de 
manding,  taking,  or  receiving  any  fee,  gratuity,  or  reward,  under  any  pre 
tense  whatever,  for  business  done  in  the  office.     But  they  were  not  restrained 
from  receiving  "such  reasonable  gratuities  as  any  person  should  think  fit  to 
bestow  for  extraordinary  attendance,  out  of  the  office,  or  for  copies  of  papers 
made  at  the  request  of  parties  therein  concerned."     See:  Board  of  Trade 
Journal,  40,  p.  203. 

126  Order  dated  August  12,  1731,  Privy  Council  Register,  "George  II," 
vol.  ii,  447. 

127  Table  of  fees  annexed  to  the  representation  of  the  Board,  June  i, 
1731  [Board  of  Trade  Miscellanies,  12,  p.  328]: 

Draught  of  commission  for  governor             .             .  £  6-  6-0 

Draught  of  general  instructions  for  governor         .             .  12-12-0 

Draught  of  instructions  for  trade      ....  6-  6-0 

Representation  for  recommending  councillors  for  plantations  4-  4-0 
Representation  on  private  business  at  request  of  persons  con 
cerned           .......  2-  2-0 

Caveat  entered  by  private  persons  with  relation  to  any  business 

depending  in  the  office      .....  10-0 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  BOARD  73 

In  1730  a  new  officer,  known  as  the  "solicitor  and 
clerk  of  reports,"  was  appointed.128  His  duties  were 
to  solicit  business  for  the  Board  at  other  offices,  and  to 
secure  reports  upon  matters  which  had  been  referred 
to  the  attorney-general  and  other  law  officers  -  a  duty 
which  had  formerly  been  cared  for  by  a  solicitor  from 
the  treasury  department.129  In  addition  the  new  officer 
had  the  task  of  getting  out  the  special  reports  to  Par 
liament  and  other  papers  which  required  a  search  of 
the  records  of  the  office. 

The  creation  of  this  office  was  caused  by  the  growth 
of  business.  Parliament  was  demanding  many  re 
ports  upon  the  conditions  in  the  colonies  and  upon 
various  matters  connected  with  the  trade  of  the  plan 
tations  and  foreign  countries.  In  addition  to  this, 

Examining  the  proprietary  governor's  security  and  the  draught 

of  a  bond  for  his  observance  of  the  acts  of  trade  .  £4-  4-0 

References  to  the  Attorney,  or  Solicitor  General  or  to  any  of  the 
king's  counsel  upon  private  business  at  the  request  of  the 
parties          .......  10-0 

Entering  patents  for  employment  in  the  plantations  .  .  2-  2-0 

Certificates   of   the   dates   of   commissions   or   of    any   matter 

granted  at  the  request  of  private  persons  .  .  10-0 

Issuing  summons  at  the  particular  request  of  any  party        .  10-0 

For  copies  of  papers  ......  10-0 

These  are  the  fees  which  the  clerks  demanded  in  their  petition,  and  the 
ones  finally  established. 

128  The  request  was  made  August  n,   1730.     The  new  officer  was  to 
receive  a  salary  of  £200  per  year,  to  be  paid  out  of  the  incidental  fund  of 
the  office.     The  request  was  promptly  granted  and  Mr.  Onslow  Burrish  was 
appointed  by  the  Board,  August  18,   1730.     See:  Board  of  Trade  Miscel 
lanies,  12,  pp.  314-315;  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  40,  p.  212. 

129  Mr.  Borrett  of  the  treasury  department  was  frequently  used.     See 
the  requests  for  him  to  secure  reports  on  laws  which  had  been  in  the  hands 
of  the   attorney-general  more  than   a  year,   February   18,    1712,   Board   of 
Trade  Journal,  23,  p.  100.     In  other  cases  the  laws  of  Pennsylvania  were 
sent    to    him    with    directions    to    secure    the    solicitor-general's    report    as 
promptly  as  possible.     See:  Letter  to  Mr.  Borrett,  August  3,  1713,  in  C.O. 
5,  1292,  p.  393. 


74         AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

commissioners  had  been  appointed  to  settle  matters 
left  unsettled  by  the  Treaty  of  Seville  with  Spain.  The 
Board  had  been  directed  to  correspond  with  these 
commissioners  and  to  supply  them  with  whatever  in 
formation  they  needed  in  their  negotiations.130  These 
demands  were  more  than  the  regular  office  force  could 
meet,  especially  as  some  required  much  time  and  spe 
cial  talents  for  research;  consequently  an  additional 
clerk  was  appointed  to  do  the  work. 

Mr.  Onslow  Burrish  131  was  the  first  of  these  offi 
cers.  He  was  succeeded  by  Alured  Popple,132  a  for 
mer  secretary  of  the  Board,  and  he  in  turn  by  John 
Pownall,133  who  later  became  secretary.  The  careful 
and  detailed  reports  upon  conditions  in  New  York, 
New  Jersey,  and  other  provinces  during  the  presiden 
cy  of  Halifax  are  most  probably  the  work  of  Pownall. 
As  it  became  more  and  more  necessary  to  go  over  back 
records  in  order  to  understand  how  conditions  had 
developed  and  thus  be  in  a  position  to  suggest  proper 
remedies,  the  efficiency  of  the  Board  was  more  and 
more  dependent  upon  an  able  clerk  of  this  kind.134 

The  special  attorney  for  the  Board  was  also  a  very 
important  official.  Until  1718  the  Lords  of  Trade 
had  referred  all  questions  of  law  to  the  attorney-  or 

130  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  40,  p.  205 ;  Board  of  Trade  Miscellanies,  12, 
pp.  310-315. 

131  The  Board  itself  appointed  him  the  same  as  it  did  all  other  clerks, 
August  18,  1730. 

132  June  3,  1737.     See:  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  47,  p.  107. 

133  May  i,  1745,  Ibid.,  53,  p.  63. 

134  Pownall  continued  to  act  as  clerk  of  reports  until  he  was  appointed 
joint  secretary  of  the  Board,  June  6,  1753.     Mr.  Edward  Sedgwick  succeeded 
him  as  clerk  of  reports  and,  as  will  be  noted  later,  was  appointed  secretary 
when   Pownall    accompanied   Halifax   to   Ireland.     See:   Board   of   Trade 
Journal,  61. 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  BOARD  75 

solicitor-general,  but  in  time  the  business  became  so 
great  that  these  officials  could  not  attend  to  it.  To 
relieve  them  of  some  of  their  least  important  work,  a 
crown  counsel  was  assigned  to  the  Board.  He  was 
not  intended  to  replace  the  attorneys-  and  solicitors- 
general  so  far  as  the  work  of  the  Board  was  concerned ; 
but  only  to  take  over  such  "Law  business  relating  to 
trade  and  plantations  as  the  Board  do  not  conceive 
important  enough"  to  require  the  opinions  of  the  high 
er  officers.135  The  latter  could  still  be  appealed  to 
upon  any  knotty  questions  of  law,  but  the  board  had 
to  pay  their  fees  out  of  its  incidental  fund,  instead  of 
having  the  treasury  defray  all  such  charges,136  for  ap 
parently  the  attorneys-  and  solicitors-general  gave  no 
opinions,  even  to  official  boards,  without  charging  the 
usual  fees. 

Three  men,  Richard  West,137  Francis  Fane,138  and 
Matthew  Lamb,139  successively  filled  the  office  of  con 
sulting  counsel.  Wherever  the  policy  of  the  Board  p 
turned  upon  a  point  of  law,  these  men  did  much  to 
shape  it;  hence  they  played  an  especially  important 
part  in  the  treatment  of  colonial  legislation.  Prac 
tically  all  the  laws  passed  in  the  colonies  were  referred 

135  Letter   of   Stanhope   to   the    Board    announcing   the    appointment    of 
Richard  West  as  attorney,  April  21,  1718,  in  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  27, 
p.  206. 

136  Order  of  the  Treasury  Board,  August  17,  1720.     See:  Ibid.,  30,  p.  326. 

137  He  resigned  in  1725  to  become  Chancellor  of  Ireland.     See:  Chalmers, 
George.  Opinions,  26. 

138  The  patent  under  the  great  seal  for  his  appointment  was  received  by 
the  Board,  September  9,  1725.     Board  of  Trade  Journal,  35,  p.  227.     He 
served  until  1746  when  he  resigned  to  become  a  member  of  the  Board.     Mat 
thew  Lamb  was  appointed  as  attorney  at  this  time.     See:  Board  of  Trade 
Journal,  54,  p.  91 ;  Chalmers,  George.  Opinions,  26. 

139  Apparently  he  died  in  office  in  1768.     See:  Chalmers,  George.  Opin 
ions,  37. 


76          AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

to  them  for  consideration;  if  they  found  any  objec 
tions  to  such  acts,  they  were  pretty  sure  to  be  disal 
lowed.  Generally  they  confined  their  opinions  to 
"objections  in  point  of  law,"  but  at  times  they  took 
into  consideration  the  effect  of  an  act  upon  the  whole 
constitutional  development  of  a  colony,  and  sometimes 
they  even  offered  advice  as  to  administrative  policy.14( 
These  men,  although  they  were  behind  the  scenes  and 
are  seldom  heard  of  in  the  historical  accounts,  must 
be  taken  into  serious  consideration  in  any  adequate 
treatment  of  the  relations  of  the  American  colonies 
to  the  mother  country  in  the  eighteenth  century. 

The  secretary,  however,  was  the  one  official  in  the 
office  who  exercised  the  greatest  power  in  shaping  the 
administrative  policy  of  the  Board.  He  opened  and 
read  the  letters,  arranged  the  business  for  the  consider 
ation  of  the  Board,  drafted  its  letters,  prepared  the 
commissions  and  instructions  for  the  governors,  and 
in  many  cases  drafted  the  representations  of  the  Board. 
Many  of  the  letters  to  the  governors  and  to  other  offi 
cials  are  signed  by  him  alone.141  He  was  the  man  who 
knew  what  was  going  on,  who  was  familiar  with  the 
precedents  of  the  office  and  who  could  advise  as  to  the 
proper  action  in  a  particular  case.  In  fact,  it  was  he 
who  conducted  the  whole  work  of  the  office  under  the 
direction  of  the  Board.142  In  addition  to  that,  those 

140  See  Chalmers,   George.   Opinions,  passim,  especially  Francis  Fane's 
opinion  on  the  Virginia  acts  of  1726  for  the  relief  of  William  and  Mary 
College,  page  403. 

141  See:  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vols.  iv,  v,  vi,  passim. 

142  How  important  he  was  in  the  eyes  of  the  Board  may  be  seen  from  the 
following  incident.     Mr.  Charles  and  Mr.  Franklin  desired  copies  of  some 
observations  of  the  proprietors  of  Pennsylvania  on  the  complaints  of  Sir 
Wm.  Johnson  of  land  purchases  in  the  Indian  country.     These  had  been 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  BOARD  77 

transacting  business  with  the  Board  had  to  deal  with 
him.  His  influence  and  information  were  always  val 
uable,  and  he  received  the  lion's  share  of  the  fees  of 
the  office,143  and  no  doubt  a  similarly  large  proportion 
of  the  gratuities. 

John  Pownall  is  probably  the  most  noted  of  all  these 
secretaries.144  He  was  a  brother  to  the  governor  of 
Massachusetts  and  far  more  than  a  mere  permanent 
secretary.  Coming  to  the  Board  in  1745  as  clerk  of 
reports,145  he  became  the  trusted  confidential  adviser 
of  Halifax,146  was  made  joint  secretary  in  i753,14T  full 
secretary  in  I758,148  and  continued  to  serve  in  that 
capacity  until  he  was  given  leave  of  absence  to  accom- 

refused  and  Charles  complained  of  the  action  of  the  secretary  in  refusing  his 
request.  The  Board  resolved  that  his  action  was  "arrogant  and  indecent," 
and  "that  the  calling  in  question  the  propriety  of  the  rules  and  orders  made 
by  this  Board  with  respect  to  the  delivery  of  copies  of  papers,  and  to  the 
conduct  of  their  officers  in  relation  thereto,  is  highly  insolent  and  indecent, 
and  that  Mr.  Charles'  complaint  against  the  secretary  concerning  a  motion 
which  Mr.  Charles  desired  might  be  made  to  the  Board  for  leave  to  have 
copies  of  certain  papers  is  groundless  and  injurious,  inasmuch  as  it  is  the 
secretary's  duty  to  arrange  the  business  for  the  Board  and  to  bring  the 
several  matters  before  them  for  their  consideration  in  such  method,  time  and 
place  as  he  shall  judge  best  for  the  convenience  and  dispatch  of  business,  or 
as  their  Lordships  shall  think  proper  to  direct."  —  December  21,  1757,  Board 
of  Trade  Journal,  65. 

143  The  secretary  received,  by  order  of  the  Board,  two-fifths  of  all  the 
fees.     See:  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  42,  pp.  97-98. 

144  T^  secretaries  in  their  order  of  service  were: 

•  William  Popple,  1696-1707  —  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  19,  p.  165. 

•  William  Popple,  Jr.,  1707-1722  — /£*W.,  32,  p.  64. 
Alured  Popple,  1722-1737  —  7^.,  47,  p.  107. 
Thomas  Hill,  1737-1758-7^.,  p.  186. 

John  Pownall,  1758-1761—7^.,  66,  Oct.  25,  1758. 

Edward  Sedgwick,  acting  secretary,  ij6i.  —  Ibid.,  69,  p.  305. 

145  —  Ibid.,  53,  P-  63- 

146  Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  article  "Halifax." 

147  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  61,  June  6,  1753. 
us  — Ibid.,  66,  October  25,  1758. 


78         AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

pany  Halifax  to  Ireland.149  Even  after  the  retirement 
of  his  patron  from  the  Board,  he  continued  to  exercise 
much  personal  influence.  His  support  of  any  meas 
ure  was  especially  valuable,  because  he  knew  so  well 
how  influence  in  its  favor  could  best  be  exerted.  It  is 
evident  from  the  letters  of  Cadwallader  Golden  that 
the  chief  "back  stair"  access  to  the  whole  Halifax  in 
fluence  was  by  way  of  Pownall.150  Because  of  this  fact, 
Golden  offered  him  the  position  of  agent  for  New 
York;  he  refused,  but  suggested  the  name  of  Edmund 
Burke  as  a  proper  person  for  such  duties.  It  was 
through  this  suggestion  that  Burke  was  afterward  se 
lected  by  the  assembly  for  its  representative. 
^All  of  the  clerks  got  their  positions  through  the  per 
sonal  support  of  either  a  member  of  the  Board  or  a 
chief  minister;  the  general  practice  being  to  allow 
members  of  the  Board  to  name  the  subordinate  clerks 
and  helpers,  while  the  secretary  and  attorney  were 
appointed  by  a  secretary  of  state.151  Once  appointed, 
however,  their  positions  were  permanent.  Only  con 
tinued  persistent  neglect  of  duty  or  disregard  of  rules 
was  sufficient  cause  for  removal.162  There  was  no  "ro- 

149  June  23,  1761.     At  the  request  of  Halifax,  Pownall  was  permitted  to 
accompany  him  to  Ireland.     Mr.  Sedgwick,  the  clerk  of  reports,  was  ap 
pointed   clerk   during   PownalPs   absence.     See:   Board    of  Trade   Journal, 
69,  p.  305. 

150  "Cadwallader  Golden  Papers"  in  New  York  Historical  Society  Col 
lections,  vol.  ix,  37,  38,  80-81. 

151  For  appointments  of  clerks  by  the  Board  see  Board  of  Trade  Journal, 
16,  p.  in;  24,  pp.  342-343;  26,  p.  223;  31,  p.  336;  32,  p.  100.     Many  others 
could  be  cited.     For  appointments  of  clerks  of  report  by  the  Board,  see  Board 
of  Trade  Journal,  40,  p.  212;  47,  p.  107;  53,  p.  63.     For  appointments  of 
secretaries,  see  ibid. 

152  May  8,  1745,  George  Armitage,  chamber-keeper,  was  dismissed  for 
neglecting  his  duty  "for  some  months  past."     See:  Board  of  Trade  Journal, 
53,  p.  66.     Other  cases  of  similar  indulgence  may  be  found. 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  BOARD  79 

tation  in  office,"  nor  were  men  dismissed  when  they 
became  more  or  less  incapacitated  by  age;  they  were 
retained  on  full  or  on  part  pay  until  they  resigned  or 
died.153  In  some  cases  sons  succeeded  fathers  and,  in 
the  case  of  the  secretary,  the  office  was  filled  succes 
sively  by  father,  son,  and  grandson.154  Changes  in 
ministry  and  monarchs  did  not  in  the  least  affect  the 
clerks,  as  they  were  regularly  advanced  according  to 
seniority  of  service.155  When  a  man  got  an  appoint 
ment  as  clerk,  he  could  feel  that  he  was  entering  upon 
a  career;  and  for  efficient  service  promotion  was  al 
most  certain.  Practically  all  the  higher  officers,  as 
the  clerk  of  reports  and  the  secretary,  began  work  in 
the  office  as  subordinate  clerks.156  One,  Alured  Pop 
ple,  rose  from  a  minor  clerkship  to  secretary,  clerk 
of  reports,  and  finally  was  appointed  governor  of  Ber 
muda.157  Thus,  while  the  Board  was  subject  to  sweer>l 
ing  changes  in  its  personnel,  the  efficiency  of  the  plan 
tation  office  was  not  seriously  affected  so  far  as  its 
working  force  was  concerned.  This  may  be  one  rea 
son  why  British  colonial  policy  shows  as  much  con 
sistency  as  it  does  during  the  eighteenth  century.* 

153  December  20,  1714,  Maurice  Carroll  was  allowed  to  retire  because  of 
age  on  an  allowance  of  £30  a  year;  he  was  receiving  £80.     Another  case  is 
that  of  Mr.  Gedney,  who  was  allowed  to  retire  in  1738  and  a  half  pay  clerk 
employed  to  fill  his  place.     The  case  of  Thos.  Hill  has  already  been  referred 
to.     Numerous  entries  in  the  Journal  may  be  cited  of  clerks  dying  in  office. 
See:  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  24,  p.  343;  48,  part  i,  p.  63;  31,  p.  336;  45, 
pp.  50,  74. 

154  William  Popple,  William  Popple,  Jr.,  and  Alured  Popple.     The  re 
lationship  is  stated  in  the  Journal  at  the  time  of  the  changes.     See  references 
in  footnote  153. 

155  This  was  the  regular  rule,  as  indicated  by  many  Journal  entries. 

156  This  was  true  of  William  Popple  Jr.,  Alured  Popple,  Thomas  Hill, 
and  Edward  Sedgwick. 

157  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  53,  p.  63. 


II.  RELATIONS  OF  THE  BOARD  OF  TRADE 

TO  OTHER  DEPARTMENTS  OF 

ADMINISTRATION 

The  Privy  Council  and  its  Committees 

By  its  commission  the  Board  was  not  empowered  to 
issue  important  executive  orders  on  its  own  authority, 
but  was  directed  to  make  representations  to  the  king 
or  to  the  king  in  council ;  and  the  final  action  appeared 
as  an  Order  in  Council.  That  fact  raises  the  impor 
tant  question  of  the  relation  of  the  Board  to  the  Privy 
Council.  As  first  organized,  the  former  was  con 
sidered  a  committee  of  the  latter  body  and  is  still  so 
considered  by  the  officials  of  the  Privy  Council  office. 
All  of  the  chief  officers  of  state  were  members  of  the 
Council  and  ex  officiis  members  of  the  Board.15'  In 
addition  to  this  two  or  more  of  the  active  working 
members  of  the  Board  were  sworn  to  the  Privy  Coun 
cil  and  frequently  attended  its  meetings.159  During^ 
the  reigns  of  William  and  Anne  the  ordinary  repre 
sentations  of  the  Board  were  disposed  of  by  the  Coun 
cil  very  much  as  were  reports  from  its  other  commit 
tees,  and  orders  issued  on  the  strength  of  such  repre 
sentations  do  not  show  the  action  of  any  intermediate 
committee^ 

158  See  the  copy  of  the  commission  of  the  Board  of  Trade  in  New  York 
Colonial  Documents,  vol.   iv.     Cf.   Board  of  Trade  Miscellanies,    12,  pp. 

439-453- 

159  See  the  Privy  Council  Register  for  these  reigns. 


82         AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

regular  form  of  order  was  like  the  one  of 
j  approving  the  boundary  agreement 


between  New  York  and  Connecticut.  The  day  pre 
ceding,  the  Board  had  made  a  representation  to  the 
king,  stating  the  dispute  as  to  the  jurisdiction  over  the 
towns  of  Rye  and  Bedford,  and  recommending  that 
the  question  be  settled  according  to  the  agreement 
arrived  at  by  commissioners  appointed  by  the  two 
colonies.  At  the  meeting  of  the  king  in  council,  this 
representation  was  read  and  approved  in  the  follow 
ing  words: 

Upon  reading  this  day  at  the  Board  a  representation  from 
the  Lords  Commissioners  of  Trade  and  Plantations  dated  the 
1  3th  of  this  month  relating  to  the  boundaries  between  the  Prov 
ince  of  New  Yorke  and  the  Colony  of  Connecticut  in  Amer 
ica.  .  .  His  Majesty  in  Council,  approving  the  said  repre 
sentation  is  pleased  to  order,  as  it  is  hereby  ordered,  that  the 
Lords  Commissioners  of  Trade  and  Plantations  do  prepare  the 
draughts  of  letters  to  be  sent  to  the  Earle  of  Bellomont,  and  to 
the  governor  and  company  of  Connecticut  from  His  Majesty, 
signifying  to  them  His  Majesty's  approbation  and  confirmation 
of  the  said  agreement  in  1683  »"  With  such  other  directions,  as 
are  proposed  by  the  said  representation;  and  that  the  said 
draughts  be  presented  at  this  Board,  for  His  Majesty's  further 
directions  thereupon.160 

In  this  order  there  is  no  mention  of  any  previous 
action  by  a  committee  ;  it  is  also  evident  that  the  action 
of  the  Board  was  approved  without  serious  question 
and  without  limitation.  This  order  is  typical  of  scores 
of  others  printed  in  the  documents  relating  to  New 
York,  North  Carolina,  Massachusetts,  New  Jersey, 
ymd  Pennsylvania,  as  late  as  1720.  In  that  year  an 
Order  in  Council  regarding  bills  of  credit  in  New 

160  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iv,  626. 


RELATIONS  TO  OTHER  DEPARTMENTS        83 

York  recites  that  the  order  had  been  recommended  by 
the  "Lords  of  the  Committee  for  Hearing  Appeals 
from  the  Plantations."  161  Two  years  later  a  reference 
to  such  a  committee  appears  for  the  first  time  in  the 
New  Jersey  Archives.  This  was  an  order  issued  on  a 
report  from  the  "Lords  of  the  Committee  of  his  Maj 
esty's  most  Honorable  Privy  Council ;"  162  and  from 
that  time  on,  a  committee  of  the  Privy  Council  is 
usually  mentioned.  This  change  in  the  wording  of 
the  orders  indicates  that  it  was  becoming  more  and 
more  the  practice  to  transact  all  important  council 
business  in  the  committees  and  consider  only  formal 
reports  in  the  king's  presence.  This  practice  relieved 
the  king  of  much  wearisome  service  and  at  the  same 
time  diminished  his  actual  participation  in  determin 
ing  the  policy  of  the  government.  The  committees 
reported  only  their  conclusions.  There  is  no  record 
of  any  dissenting  opinions,  and  whatever  action  the 
committees  recommended  appears  to  have  been  car 
ried  into  execution  by  the  council  without  question.^ 
,  At  the  time  the  Board  of  Trade  was  established^ 
executive  and  judicial  business  from  the  Channel  Is 
lands  and  appeals  from  the  plantations  were  regularly 
referred  to  committees.  So  far  as  the  Privy  Council 

161  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  v,  539. 

162  ]sjew  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  28.     The  first  reference  in  the  Pennsyl 
vania  Archives  to  the  action  of  such  a  committee  occurs  in  1726  in  an  order 
for  repealing  an  act  of  the  assembly  of  that  colony.     There  is  a  slight  refer 
ence  to  such  a  committee  in  the  scheme  of  government  submitted   to  the 
Board  by  Stanhope  in  1714.     In  this  case,  its  recommendation  was  adverse 
to  an  instruction  given  by  the  Board  to  the  governors  as  regards  appeals. 
The  Board  got  the  matter  recommitted  to  its  consideration  and  finally  carried 
its  point.     See:  Pennsylvania  Archives,  vol.  i,  190;  North  Carolina  Colonial 
Records,  vol.  ii,  162.     The  Massachusetts  Acts  and  Resolves  [vol.  ii,  272] 
record  the  first  action  of  a  committee  on  the  laws  of  that  province  in  1723. 


84          AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

Register  shows,  questions  of  this  character  from  the 
non-contiguous  territories,  which  had  their  relations 
with  the  British  government  chiefly  through  the 
crown,  were  treated  alike.  The  form  of  procedure 
developed  for  judicial  appeals  from  Jersey  and 
Guernsey  was  used  for  the  same  class  of  business  from 
the  various  British  colonies.  Each  petition  for  an  ap 
peal  was  referred  to  a  committee  which  investigated 
the  merits  of  the  case,  determined  what  should  be 
done,  and  reported  its  findings  to  the  council  with 
recommendations.163 

When  committees  of  the  Privy  Council  are  men 
tioned  they  must  not  be  thought  of  as  standing  or 
special  committees,  such  as  are  common  in  modern 
legislative  bodies;  they  correspond  more  to  commit 
tees  of  the  whole,  as  in  fact  they  were.  Names  for 
these  committees  describe  the  business  done  instead  of 
designating  a  certain  group  of  men,  consequently 
there  is  considerable  variety  in  the  names  used  in  the 
Register.  Thus  out  of  nineteen  such  committee  meet 
ings  between  May,  1700,  and  December,  1701,  there 
are  no  less  than  seven  different  names  used  to  describe 
them;  the  most  common  being,  "At  the  Committee 
for  Hearing  of  Appeals  from  the  Plantations  and  for 
the  Affaires  of  Jersey  and  Guernsey."  164  Evidently 

163  The  Privy  Council  Register  shows  this  to  have  been  the  constant 
practice,  and  no  distinction  is  to  be  noticed  between  the  manner  of  determin 
ing  appeals  from  the  plantations  and  those  from  Jersey  and  Guernsey.     The 
action  of  July  9,  1701,  was  typical  of  many  others.     On  that  day  appeals 
were  considered  by  the  same  committee  from  Barbadoes,  from  Jersey,  and 
from  Guernsey.     See:  Privy  Council  Register,  "William  III,"  vol.  vi,  231. 

164  The  names  were:    "At  the  Committee  of  the  Councill  for  Hearing  of 
Appeals    from   the    Plantations."  -  May    3,    1700,    Privy    Council    Register, 
"William  III,"  vol.  vi,  21. 

"At  the  Committee  of  the  Councill  for  Hearing  of  Appeals  from  the 
Plantations,  Jersey,  Guernsey,  etc."  —  May  22,  1700,  Ibid.,  31. 


RELATIONS  TO  OTHER  DEPARTMENTS        85 

it  is  one  committee  and  not  a  series  of  committees 
which  is  referred  to  by  these  seven  different  names. 
This  is  indicated  by  the  looseness  with  which  the 
names  are  used,165  by  the  character  of  the  business 
transacted  at  the  various  meetings,  by  the  general 
presence  of  the  same  group  of  men,  and  by  the  lack 
of  consistency  in  changes  in  personnel  with  changes 
in  the  name  of  the  committee.  Not  only  is  it  a  single 
committee,  but  it  also  appears  to  be  the  one  great 
committee  of  the  British  government,  the  cabinet 
council ;  for  one  or  both  of  the  chief  secretaries  of 
state  were  nearly  always  present,166  usually  accompa 
nied  by  the  lord  president  and  one  of  the  chief  jus 
tices,167  and  sometimes  by  the  chancellor  of  the  ex 
chequer.  As  the  attendance  in  the  above  cases  was 

"At  the  Committee  of  the  Council!  of  the  Affaires  of  Jersey  and  Guernsey 
and  for  Appeals  from  the  Plantations."  —  June  28,  1700,  Privy  Council 
Register,  "William  III,"  vol.  vi,  69. 

"At  the  Committee  for  Hearing  of  Appeals  from  the  Plantations,  etc."  — 
July  8,  1700,  Ibid.,  70. 

"At  the  Committee  for  Hearing  of  Appeals  from  the  Plantations  and  for 
the  Affaires  of  Jersey  and  Guernsey."  —  November  2,  1700,  Ibid.,  93. 

"At  the  Committee  for  the  Affaires  of  Jersey  and  Guernsey."  —  December 
19,  1700,  Ibid.,  121. 

"At  the  Committee  for  the  Affairs  of  Jersey  and  Guernsey  and  the  Plan 
tations."  —  April  9,  1701,  Ibid.,  183. 

A  still  more  descriptive  title  was  used  on  September  2,  1698 :  "At  the  Com 
mittee  for  hearing  Appeales  from  the  Plantations,  For  the  Affaires  of  Jersey 
and  Guernsey  and  for  the  Redemption  of  Captives."  _Ibid.,  vol.  v,  223-224. 

135  The  Committee  is  called  one  on  appeals  when  no  appellate  business 
was  done  [Privy  Council  Register,  "William  III,"  vol.  vi,  123] ;  on  appeals 
from  the  plantations  when  only  those  from  Jersey  were  heard  [Ibid.,  263] ; 
and  a  committee  with  the  common  heading  given  above  considered  the 
question  of  a  light  house  at  Dublin  [Ibid.,  123] 

166  Secretary  Vernon  was  present  fourteen  out  of  the  seventeen  meetings, 
while  Hedges  attended  eight  of  them.     Both  Hedges  and  Vernon  were  pres 
ent   on    six  occasions.     See:   Privy   Council   Register,   "William   III,"   vol. 
vi,  21-316. 

167  Chief  Justice  Holt  was  absent  three  times,  and  the  lord  president  seven. 


86          AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

never  more  than  six  nor  less  than  three,  and  was  most 
commonly  four,  the  resemblance  to  a  cabinet  council 
is  still  further  emphasized.168 

During  Queen  Anne's  reign  this  committee  of  the 
Privy  Council  was  very  much  the  same  as  during  the 
reign  of  William.  It  was  still  a  committee  for  dis 
posing  of  various  business  from  Jersey,  Guernsey,  and 
the  plantations.  The  attendance,  in  general,  was 
somewhat  larger;  and  there  was  a  little  more  regular 
ity  in  the  title,  although  there  was  still  the  general 
variation  to  make  the  titles  descriptive  of  the  work 
which  was  done  at  each  meeting; 169  and  in  one  case 
where  a  variety  of  business  was  transacted,  no  attempt 
was  made  to  name  the  committee.170 

The  tendency  to  refer  all  matters  requiring  investi 
gation  or  deliberation  to  committees  continued;  and 
these  references  are  to  committees  of  the  whole  coun- 

168  September  17,  1701,  when  only  appellate  business  was  considered,  the 
committee  consisted  of  Secretary  Vernon,  Secretary  Hedges,  Chancellor  of 
the  Exchequer,  and  Chief  Justice  Holt.     See:  Privy  Council  Register,  "Wil 
liam  III,"  vol.  vi,  263. 

169  The  titles  which  were  most  commonly  used  were: 

A  Committee  for  the  King's  funeral  and  the  Queen's  coronation;  Com 
mittee  for  the  Affairs  of  Jersey  and  Guernsey;  Committee  of  the  Whole 
Council  and  to  Consider  of  Barbadoes  Lawes,  and  for  ye  Affaires  of  Jersey 
and  Guernsey ;  At  a  Committee  for  hearing  of  Appeals  from  the  Plantations 
and  for  Jersey  and  Guernsey;  Committee  for  Jersey  and  Guernsey;  Com 
mittee  for  hearing  Appeals  from  the  Plantations  and  for  the  Affaires  of 
Jersey  and  Guernsey ;  At  the  Councill  Chamber  at  Whitehall ;  the  Committee 
for  hearing  Appeals  from  the  Plantations;  and  At  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  Councill  for  the  Affairs  of  Jersey  and  Guernsey  and  for  hearing  of 
Appeals  from  the  Plantations.  See:  Privy  Council  Register,  "Anne,"  vols.  i, 
iii,  iv,  v,  passim. 

170  This  entry  is  "At  the  Councill  Chamber  at  Whitehall."     A  variety  of 
business  was  transacted,  among  other  things  an  order  was  entered  for  hearing 
an  appeal  from  Barbadoes.     This  is  preceded  with  the  statement  that  the 
petition  for  an  appeal  "had  been  referred  to  the  Right  Honourable  the  Lords 
of  this  Committee,"  but  the  reference  was  to  the  Committee  on  Appeals  from 
the  Plantations.     See:  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  248,  259. 


RELATIONS  TO  OTHER  DEPARTMENTS        87 

cil,  instead  of  to  specially  named  groups.171  The  one 
exception  was  bills  from  Ireland  which  were  regular 
ly  referred  to  a  special  committee.172  That  and  the 
two  special  committees  for  the  king's  funeral  and  the 
queen's  coronation  are  the  only  committees  which 
were  specially  appointed;  all  others  are  simply  com 
mittees  of  the  whole  council. 

The  principal  secretaries  of  state,  members  of  the 
Board,  the  lord  president,  and  other  officers  attended 
these  committees  very  much  as  they  did  in  the  preced 
ing  reign.  It  was  still  a  compact  group  of  the  most 
influential  men  in  the  administration.  There  is  ad 
ditional  proof  that  it  was  but  one  committee,  which 
was  still  masquerading  under  various  names;  for  bus 
iness  which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  for  Hear 
ing  Appeals  from  the  Plantations  was  considered  by  a 
committee  which  also  calls  itself  one  on  the  Affairs 
of  Jersey  and  Guernsey,  and  vice  versa^3 

171  July  15,  1710:  "It  is  this  day  ordered  by  Her  Majesty  in  Council  that 
a  committee  of  the  whole  Council  do  meet  on  Wednesday  next  being  the  i9th 
of  this  instant,  July,  at  ten  of  the  clock  in  the  morning,  to  consider  of  proper 
expedients  for  furnishing  the  city  of  London  with  coals,  and  regulating  the 
coal  trade,  and  to  report  their  opinion  what  Her  Majesty  may  fitly  doe  there 
in."  —  Privy  Council  Register,  "Anne,"  vol.  iv,  24.     When  this  committee 
met  to  consider  the  matter,  it  consisted  of  the  Lord  Treasurer,  Lord  Presi 
dent,  Earl  of  Radnor,  Dartmouth,  and  Vernon,  or  in  other  words  the  Cab 
inet.     See:  Ibid.,  27.  / 

Another  entry  which  is  still  more  descriptive  of  the  tendency  to  refer 
business  to  committees  is  that  of  November  2,  1710:  "It  is  this  day  ordered 
by  Her  Majesty  in  Council  that  the  cause  of  the  Canary  merchants  against 
Mr.  Pauldon,  Her  Majesty's  consul  of  the  Canary  Islands,  which  was  to  be 
heard  this  day  before  Her  Majesty  be,  and  it  is  hereby  referred  to  a  com 
mittee  of  the  whole  council,  who  are  to  meet  at  the  Council  Chamber  at  White 
hall  on  Saturday  evening  nth  instant,  whereof  the  several  parties  concerned 
are  to  take  notice  and  come  prepared  to  be  heard  accordingly."  —  /^.,  138. 

172  —  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  512;  vol.  iv,  347. 

173  May  20,   1708,   two   appeals  from  Barbadoes  were   referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Appeals  from  the  Plantations.     They  were  considered  eight 


88         AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

K  The  relations  of  the  Board  of  Trade  to  the  Privy 
Council  during  Queen  Anne's  reign  were  essentially 
those  of  a  committee  of  that  body;  and  its  represen 
tations,  in  general,  were  confirmed  without  reference 
to  any  other  committee.  There  are  a  few  exceptions, 
however,  which  seem  to  indicate  that  any  objection 
to  a  representation,  or  a  petition  against  it,  would  lead 
to  the  reference  of  both  to  the  Committee  on  Appeals 
from  the  Plantations.174  If  there  was  no  objection  to  a 
representation  of  the  Board,  it  was  not  so  referred. 
Another  fact  stands  out  prominently.  The  commit 
tee  of  the  Privy  Council,  so  far  as  plantation  business 
was  concerned,  confined  itself  almost  wholly  to  the 
consideration  of  appeals,  petitions,  and  complaints. 
It  was  not  a  committee  for  general  plantation  business, 
nor  did  any  such  committee  exist. 

It  is  well  known  that  George  I,  because  of  his  in 
ability  to  understand  English,  left  the  general  man 
agement  of  affairs  much  more  in  the  hands  of  his 
ministers  than  had  preceding  kings;  but  it  is  possible 

days  later  by  a  "Committee  for  hearing  of  Appeals  from  the  Plantations  and 
for  the  Affairs  of  Jersey  and  Guernsey."  The  entry  in  the  latter  case,  how 
ever,  states  that  they  had  been  referred  "to  this  Committee."  The  same 
thing  occurred  on  October  27,  of  the  same  year.  August  9,  1710,  an  appeal 
of  Rawlin  Robbins  from  Jersey  was  referred  to  the  "Committee  on  Jersey 
and  Guernsey."  October  24,  following,  this  appeal  was  considered  by  the 
"Committee  of  the  Whole  Council  for  the  Affairs  of  Jersey  and  Guernsey  and 
for  hearing  Appeals  from  the  Plantations,"  with  the  entry  that  it  had  been 
referred  "to  the  Committee."  See:  Privy  Council  Register,  "Anne,"  vol. 
iv,  95-96,  101,  176,  79,  135. 

I/'174  July  2,  1702,  a  representation  of  the  Board  of  Trade  on  some  laws  of 
Barbadoes  was  referred  to  the  "Committee  of  the  Whole  Council."  See: 
Privy  Council  Register,  "Anne,"  vol.  i,  166.  October  25,  1714,  a  repre 
sentation  of  the  Board  for  the  disallowance  of  a  Jamaica  law  was  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Appeals  from  the  Plantations.  The  petition  against 
the  representation  in  this  case  was  contested.  See:  Ibid.,  "George  I,"  vol. 
i,  102,  122. 


RELATIONS  TO  OTHER  DEPARTMENTS        89 

that  this  change,  so  far  as  colonial  affairs  were  con 
cerned,  has  been  exaggerated.175  It  has  already  been 
shown  that  the  Privy  Council  was  rapidly  becoming 
a  registering  body  instead  of  a  deliberative  one.  The 
action  of  George  I  only  tended  to  complete  this  move 
ment.  All  colonial  business,  except  that  of  register 
ing  actions  already  decided  upon,  was  transferred  to 
committees,  or  rather  to  a  committee.  October  i, 
1714,  it  was  ordered: 

That  the  whole  Privy  Council  or  any  three  or  more  of  them 
be,  and  hereby  are  appointed  a  Committee  for  the  Affairs  of 
Jersey  and  Guernsey,  Hearing  of  Appeals  from  ye  Plantations, 
and  other  Matters  that  shall  be  referred  to  them,  and  that  they 
proceed  to  hear  and  examine  such  causes  as  have  been  referred 
to  committees  of  ye  council  by  her  late  Majesty  and  report  the 
same  with  their  opinions  thereupon  to  this  Board.176 

This  was  followed  up  in  February,  1715,  by  another 
order  referring  all  petitions  already  before  the  council 
to  this  committee  of  the  whole.177 

It  should  be  noted  that  these  two  orders  transferred 
business  from  the  Privy  Council  to  one  committee  and 
not  to  a  series  of  committees.  Nevertheless  the  Privy 
Council  Register  for  the  next  few  years  shows  a  be- 

175  The  Privy  Council  Register  shows  that  during  the  reign  of  Anne 
extraordinary  matters  which  came  before  the  sovereign  in  council  were  re 
ferred  to  a  committee  to  investigate  and  recommend  whatever  action  seemed 
desirable. 

176  privy  Council  Register,  "George  I,"  vol.  i,  89.     This  order  supplied 
a  general  rule  for  cases  which  had  received  a  similar  disposition  under  Anne, 
the  difference  being  that  during  her  reign  each  case  was  disposed  of  sep 
arately. 

177  February  23.  1715.     "It  is  this  day  ordered  by  His  Majesty  in  Council, 
That  all  petitions  presented  and  depending  before  the  Board  be,  and  they 
are  hereby  referr'd  to  the  Right  Honoble  the  Lords  of  the  Committee  of  the 
whole  Council  to  examine  the  same  and  give  such  directions  thereupon  as  their 
Lordships  shall  judge  proper."  —  Privy  Council  Register,  "George  I,"  vol. 
i,  189-190. 


90          AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

wildering  array  of  variously  named  committees.  There 
are  committees  on  "Appeals  from  the  Plantations ;"  of 
the  "whole  Council;"  "for  Appeals  from  the  Planta 
tions  and  for  the  Affairs  of  Jersey  and  Guernsey;"  for 
"the  Irish  bills  and  other  Affairs;"  for  "Jersey  and 
Guernsey;"  178  for  "Appeals  from  the  Plantations  and 
from  Jersey  and  Guernsey;"  for  hearing  "Appeals, 
Complaints,  etc. ;"  for  hearing  "Appeals,  Complaints, 
etc.,  from  the  Plantations  and  for  the  Affairs  of  Jer 
sey  and  Guernsey;"  179  for  the  "Affairs  of  the  Planta- 
from  the  Plantations,  Jersey  and  Guernsey;"181  and 
the  Plantations;"  for  the  "Affairs  of  the  Planta 
tions;"180  for  the  "Irish  Bills  and  to  hear  Appeals 
from  the  Plantations,  Jersey  and  Guernsey;"181  and 
simply  "Committees"  with  no  further  title.182  Here 
are  a  dozen  different  names  used  to  describe  commit 
tees  and  the  list  is  not  exhaustive.183  It  looks  as  if  the 
clerks  in  the  Privy  Council  office  exercised  their  wits 
to  get  every  possible  variation  in  the  names. 

Aside  from  the  different  names  used  to  designate 
these  committees,  there  is  nothing  to  indicate  that 
there  was  more  than  the  one  committee  of  the  whole 
at  work.  General  plantation  business  was  considered 
by  the  committee  on  appeals  from  the  plantations  as 
were  also  appeals  from  Guernsey.184  The  Committee 

178  privy  Council  Register,  "George  I,"  vol.  i,  102,  304,  222,  402,  248. 
i™  —  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  81,  112,  124. 

180  —  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  441,  76,  340. 

181  —  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  124. 

182  —  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  93,  129,  162. 

183  Several  variations  of  the  above  titles  occur  and  each  name  appears 
more  than  once,  some  of  them  very  frequently,   although  for  the  sake  of 
brevity  one  reference  only  is  cited. 

184  January  29,  1717,  the  "Committee  for  hearing  Appeals  from  the  Plan- 


RELATIONS  TO  OTHER  DEPARTMENTS        91 

for  the  Affairs  of  Jersey,  Guernsey  and  the  Planta 
tions  heard  appeals  from  Jersey  and  from  the  planta 
tions.185  Questions  concerning  the  internal  administra 
tion  of  England,  such  as  waterworks  for  Chelsea,  and 
a  charter  of  incorporation  for  the  musicians  and  danc 
ing-masters  of  London,  and  colonial  business  were 
considered  at  the  same  committee  meeting.186  Most 
significant  of  all,  however,  is  the  very  common  refer 
ence  of  business  to  a  committee  of  the  whole  council 
and  the  later  consideration  of  this  same  business  by 
some  committee  calling  itself  by  a  different  name, 
though  the  entry  states  that  it  had  been  referred  "to 
this  committee."  m 

tations"  considered  appeals  from  New  York  and  from  Guernsey  [Privy 
Council  Register,  "George  I,"  vol.  ii,  84].  July  25,  1722,  a  committee  with 
this  title  prepared  heads  of  a  scheme  for  a  civil  court  in  Gibraltar1  \Ibid.t 
vol.  iv,  66].  December  17,  1720,  a  committee  "for  hearing  Appeals,  etc., 
from  the  Plantations"  considered  an  appeal  from  Guernsey  [Ibid.,  vol.  iii, 
88].  November  8,  1714,  a  committee  "for  hearing  of  Appeals  from  the 
Plantations"  reported  upon  a  representation  of  the  Board  of  Trade  on  an 
act  passed  in  Jamaica,  which  later  became  the  most  common  business  for  the 
"Committee  on  Plantation  Affairs"  [Ibid.,  vol.  i,  102]. 

185  _  Hij^  voi  v>  8a 

186  December  14,  1722,  "a  Committee"  disposed  of  the  following:  acts  and 
appeals  from  Barbadoes;  business  from  Jersey,  Guernsey,  Gibraltar,  and  the 
Isle  of  Man;    and   waterworks   for   Chelsea,   England.     May   29,   1725,   a 
similar  committee  investigated  a  murder  case  at  Newgate  prison,  London, 
and  the  dispute  between  Governor  Shute  of  Massachusetts  and  the  House  of 
Representatives  of  that  colony.     May  10,   1717,   a  committee  "for  hearing 
Appeales,  Complaints,  etc."  examined  a  petition  against  a  charter  incorporat 
ing  the  musicians   and  dancing-masters  of  London,  considered  Mumford's 
appeal  from  New  York,  and  disposed  of  some  miscellaneous  business  from 
Jersey  and  Guernsey.     See:  Privy  Council  Register,   "George  I,"  vol.   iv, 
162,  vol.  v,  60,  vol.  ii,  112. 

187  July  6,  1716,  Peter  Somnas'  petition  for  lands  in  New  Jersey  was  re 
ferred  "to  a  Committee  of  the  Whole  Council."     January  14,  1717,  this  peti 
tion  was  reported  upon  by  a  committee  on  "Appeals  from  the  Plantations 
from  Jersey  and  Guernsey."     Numerous  other  entries  similar  to  this  occur. 
See:  Privy  Council  Register,  "George  I,"  vol.  i,  425,  vol.  ii,  81. 


92         AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

The  personnel  of  this  variously  named  committee 
during  the  reign  of  George  I  is  very  much  the  same 
as  it  was  under  Anne.  One  or  more  of  the  chief 
secretaries  of  state  were  frequently  present,  the  lord 
president  and  one  or  both  of  the  chief  justices  nearly 
always  so,  and  usually  the  president  or  some  other 
member  of  the  board.188  The  attendance  is  frequently 
larger  than  under  Anne  or  William,  being  as  high  as 
fourteen,  although  four,  six,  and  eight  are  common. 

This  committee  considered  a  much  wider  range  of 
plantation  business  than  it  did  during  the  preceding 
reigns.  Practically  all  of  the  representations  from 
the  Board  were  referred  to  it  by  the  council,  the  only 
exceptions,  apparently,  being  those  for  the  appoint 
ment  of  colonial  councillors.189  Petitions,  complaints, 
memorials,  etc.  were  regularly  referred  to  the  same 
committee.  In  most  cases  these  were  further  referred 
to  the  Board  of  Trade  for  examination,  and  the  com 
mittee  usually  confined  itself  to  a  consideration  of  the 
facts  as  reported  by  that  body.190  The  most  important 
member  of  the  committee  was  the  secretary  of  state 
for  the  Southern  Department,  who  was  responsible 


attendance  at  the  "Committee  on  Plantation  Affairs"  on  October 
25,  1721  [Privy  Council  Register,  "George  I,"  vol.  iii,  340],  is  fairly  repre 
sentative  of  the  regular  attendance  at  these  various  committees.  Those 
present  were:  Lord  President,  L.  Lechmere,  E.  of  Sutherland,  Mr.  Comp 
troller,  L.  Vis.  Townsend,  Mr.  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  L.  Carteret, 
Master  of  the  Rolls. 

189  privy  Council  Register,  "George  I,"  vol.  iv,  60.     See  also  the  other 
volumes  for  this  reign. 

190  December  17,  1720,  the  committee  had  before  it  a  representation  of  the 
Board  of  Trade  upon  a  petition  of  William  West  for  some  waste  lands  in 
Maine.     Counsel  for  Mr.  West,  that  against  his  claims,  and  the  committee 
examined  the  maps  submitted  in  proof  of  the  various  claims.     It  is  apparent 
that  this  is  the  work  of  a  court  of  appeals  and  not  of  a  court  of  first  in 
stance.     See:  Privy  Council  Register,  "George  I,"  vol.  iii,  88. 


RELATIONS  TO  OTHER  DEPARTMENTS        93 

for  the  colonies.191  This  would  seem  to  indicate  that 
the  relation  of  the  Board  of  Trade  to  the  Privy  Coun 
cil  was  gradually  resolving  itself  into  its  relation  to 
the  secretary  of  state.  It  has  already  been  shown  that 
the  latter  official  was  gradually  taking  over  the  func 
tions  of  the  Board  after  1715.  This  change  synchro 
nizes  with  the  growth  in  the  activity  and  the  increase 
in  the  general  range  of  colonial  business  considered 
by  the  Committee  of  Council. 

September  20,  1727,  the  Privy  Council  was  again 
dissolved  and  a  new  one  appointed.192  In  almost  the 
same  words  as  those  used  in  1714,  the  whole  of  the 
Privy  Council  or  any  three  or  more  of  them  were 
appointed  "a  Committee"  for  the  affairs  of  Jersey  and 
Guernsey,  for  hearing  appeals  from  the  plantations, 
and  other  matters  which  might  be  referred  to  them. 
They  were  also  to  take  over  such  questions  as  were 
still  pending  before  "committees"  of  the  Privy  Coun 
cil. 195;  This  again  is  a  record  of  the  appointment  of  one 
committee  and  not  a  series  of  committees ;  but,  never 
theless,  the  record  shows  the  same  general  confusion 
of  titles  as  before. 

The  three  names  which  appear  regularly  in  the 

191  He  was  not  always  present  at  the  meetings,  but  frequently  was.    New 
castle  was  much  more  regular  in  his  attendance  during  the  first  few  years  of 
his  administration  than  he  was  in  the  later  years. 

192  privy  Council  Register,  "George  II,"  vol.  i,  118. 

193  "It  is  this  day  ordered  by  His  Majesty  in  Council  that  the  whole 
Privy  Council  or  any  three  or  more  of  them  be  and  they  are  hereby  appointed 
a  committee  for  the  affairs  of  Jersey  and  Guernsey,  Hearing  of  Appeals  from 
the  Plantations  and  other  matters  that  shall  be  referred  to  them,  and  that 
they  proceed  to  hear  and  examine  such  causes  as  have  been  already  referred 
to  committees  of  the  Council  and  report  the  same  with  their  opinion  there 
upon  to  His  Majesty  at  this  Board."  —  Privy  Council  Register,  "George  II," 
vol.  i,  121. 


94          AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

printed  colonial  records  are:  "A  Committee  of  the 
Lords  of  His  Majesty's  Most  Honourable  Privy 
Council,"  "The  Right  Honourable  the  Lords  of  the 
Committee  of  Council  for  Hearing  Appeals  from  the 
Plantations,"  and  the  "Committee  of  Council  for 
Plantation  Affairs."  19*  These  are  used  so  constantly, 
especially  after  1722,  as  to  give  the  impression  that 
they  were  permanent  organs  of  the  Privy  Council,  and 
writers  on  colonial  history  have  assumed  that  there 
were  at  least  two  distinct  committees;  one  on  gen 
eral  plantation  affairs  and  one  on  appeals.  This 
impression  is  almost  inevitable  if  only  the  printed 
records  or  even  the  Board  of  Trade  papers  are  ex 
amined;  but  an  investigation  of  the  Privy  Council 
Register  soon  convinces  one  that  no  such  distinct  com 
mittees  existed  in  function,  in  organization,  or  in 
personnel. 

The  "Committee  on  Plantation  Affairs"  appears  in 
the  colonial  records  to  have  limited  its  activity  to  mis 
cellaneous  administrative  questions  from  the  colonies ; 
but  it  did  not,  for  on  January  15,  1735,  a  committee 
bearing  this  title  issued  orders  for  hearing  appeals 
from  Massachusetts,  Virginia,  Rhode  Island,  and 
Jamaica,  and  also  considered  a  complaint  from 
Guernsey.195  Another  such  committee  reported  on  a 
scheme  for  supporting  sea  officers'  poor  widows.196 
Others  considered  appeals  from  Jersey,197  issued  or- 

194  See  the  printed  records  for  New  York,  New  Jersey,  North  Carolina, 
and  Pennsylvania. 

195  This   same   committee    approved    an    additional    instruction    for   the 
Governor  of  South  Carolina.     See:  Privy  Council  Register,  "George  II," 
vol.  iv,  82-85. 

196  juiy  I2>  I732>  ibid^  vol.  iii,  i. 

197  July  21,  1729,  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  30. 


RELATIONS  TO  OTHER  DEPARTMENTS        95 

ders  for  sending  supplies  to  Alderney,198  ordered  the 
Northumberland  militia  to  be  put  in  readiness,199  re 
ported  on  building  a  hospital  in  Jersey,200  and  issued 
orders  on  appeals  from  the  plantations  and  from  the 
Isle  of  Man.201 

Appeals  were  usually  heard  by  a  committee  specif 
ically  called  one  for  "Hearing  Appeals  from  the 
Plantations,"  but  such  committees  by  no  means  lim 
ited  their  activity  to  judicial  business,  as  the  work 
done  on  two  different  dates  will  show.  July  i,  1740, 
such  a  committee  considered  appeals  and  in  addition 
reported  on  the  commission  for  settling  the  boundary 
dispute  between  Massachusetts  and  Rhode  Island, 
confirmed  the  appointment  of  councilors  for  Nevis, 
recommended  that  stores  be  sent  to  Jersey  and  referred 
back  to  the  Board  a  proposed  instruction  about  bills 
of  credit.202  Another  committee  of  the  same  name  dis 
posed  of  some  appeals  from  Jamaica,  and  then  re 
ported  on  the  laws  of  Massachusetts  and  of  Pennsyl 
vania,  recommended  that  ordnance  stores  should  be 
sent  to  North  Carolina,  and  reported  upon  a  petition 
for  some  islands  in  the  Delaware  River.203  Almost  any 
number  of  similar  illustrations  could  be  given  of  the 
action  of  committees  on  appeals,  as  they  appear  to 
have  disposed  of  whatever  miscellaneous  business 
awaited  the  action  of  a  committee.204 

198  November  19,  1745,  Privy  Council  Register,  "George  II,"  vol.  x,  250 
255. 

199  December  3,  1745,  Ibid. 

200  May  3,  1750,  Ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  4. 

201  October  6,  1763,  Privy  Council  Register,  "George  III,"  vol.  iii,  112. 

202  — Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  132. 

.     203  june  24)  1756,  Ibid.,  vol.  xvi,  210-228. 

204  July  8,  1745,  a  "Committee  on  Appeals"  after  disposing  of  some  ap- 


96         AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

The  work  of  the  "Committee  of  the  Privy  Council" 
shows  about  the  same  variety  as  the  two  committees 
considered  above.  At  one  session  it  considered  an 
appeal  from  Guernsey,  heard  a  complaint  about  the 
election  of  a  vintner  for  Cambridge  University,  and 
examined  and  revised  the  instructions  for  the  gov 
ernor  of  Barbadoes.205  At  another  meeting  it  had  un 
der  consideration  the  dispute  between  Governor  Bur- 
net  and  the  assembly  of  Massachusetts;  complaints 
against  Governor  Everard  of  North  Carolina  and  of 
the  obstruction  to  admiralty  jurisdiction  in  the  same 
colony; 206  disputes  about  the  office  of  town  clerk  in 
Falmouth,  England;207  referred  numerous  petitions  to 
the  Board  of  Trade;  considered  representations  from 
that  body  on  the  laws  of  various  colonies ;  and  trans 
acted  a  variety  of  other  business.  Thus  this  commit 
tee  heard  appeals  and  took  charge  of  general  planta 
tion  matters. 

Appeals  from  the  plantations  were  considered,  not 
only  by  the  above  committees,  but  also  by  those  called 
"Committees  for  the  Affairs  of  Jersey  and  Guern 
sey,"  208  and  even  by  those  "to  consider  the  Irish 

pellate  business  considered  the  draft  of  a  charter  for  Maidstone  in  the  county 
of  Kent,  a  subject  rather  far  removed  from  appeals  from  the  plantations. 
December  8,  1736,  another  committee  with  the  same  name  heard  appeals  from 
Jamaica;  made  orders  on  appeals  from  Barbadoes,  Jersey,  Guernsey,  Rhode 
Island,  and  Gibraltar;  considered  a  representation  of  the  Board  of  Trade  on 
a  petition  from  Messrs.  Crimble  and  Huey  of  North  Carolina ;  and  referred 
to  the  Board  a  report  of  the  exports  of  the  East  India  Company  and  a  com 
plaint  of  South  Carolina  against  the  government  of  Georgia.  See:  Privy 
Council  Register,  "George  II,"  vol.  v,  27-33,  vol.  x,  148. 

205  July  16,  1728,  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  336. 

206  All  of  the  above  matters  were  disposed  of,  October  23,  1729.     See: 
Privy  Council  Register,  "George  II,"  vol.  ii,  63. 

207  November  i,  1734,  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  22. 

208  November  21,  1745,  Ibid.,  vol.  x,  255. 


. 

*  'tnt/J  . 


CL^dfa*  M 


't^&Z****Z  *^^^"  ±J 

'"^ ,./,,,  ,,/-•  Gy**X£'*L  x^-'-^  *  **""  -""X  '"^ 
L,  *  <  ^-^"  '"^u"/  •*"*" ' 


^^  «  ~-  ^;ms^-<->'- 
^fe^zr^^.^—  -^ 


4.1f£&s,-s/f/ 


Xt 


,.,<.•*"«.?/<••  .'*.*'•<•< 

i7/,sS 'jft.'  *Lrr<*j  C»"~~ 


A  PRIVY  COUNCIL  COMMITTEE  MEETING 

Note  the  presence  of  the  principal  cabinet  officers.     After  disposing  of  this 
question   from  Virginia  it  considered  business  from  Jersey,   Guernsey,   and 

the  West  Indies 
[Privy   Council  Register,  "George  II,"  vol.  II,  5$] 


RELATIONS  TO  OTHER  DEPARTMENTS        99 

Bills ;" 209  consequently,  even  on  judicial  business, 
there  were  no  absolutely  distinct  committees  other 
than  the  "Committee  of  the  whole  Council."  The 
same  is  true  for  all  general  plantation  business.  This 
is  further  emphasized  by  the  continual  consideration 
of  affairs  at  a  committee  bearing  one  name  when  the 
record  shows  it  was  referred  to,  or  was  appointed  to 
be  heard  before,  one  of  a  different  name. 

So  far  as  mere  names  are  concerned,  however,  usage 
in  the  council  office  was  gradually  evolving  a  some 
what  settled  phraseology.  iFor  the  first  twenty  years 
after  the  Board  was  organized  the  most  common  ref 
erence  of  colonial  business  was  to  the  Committee  for 
Hearing  Appeals  from  the  Plantations^10  That  be 
came  a  settled  form  of  reference  for  petitions,  for 
appeals,  and,  in  general,  for  specific  complaints.  Gen 
eral  plantation  business  was  regularly  referred  to  "a 
Committee"  of  the  Privy  Council  until  about  1732, 
when  the  more  familiar  reference  to  the  "Committee 
for  Plantation  Affairs"  becomes  the  accepted  form  of 
entry.  The  other  forms  of  reference,  however,  were 
still  used  more  or  less.  The  change  in  the  form  of 
entry  by  the  clerks  accounts  for  most  of  the  changes 
in  the  name  of  the  committee  of  the  Privy  Council 
which  occur  in  the  printed  colonial  records. 

The  personnel  of  none  of  these  differently  named 
committees  distinguishes  it  from  the  others.  The 
secretaries  of  state  were  occasionally  present,  but 
somewhat  more  frequently  when  the  committee  is 

209  November  25,  1745,  the  "Committee  to  consider  the  Irish  Bills"  after 
finishing  that  business  heard  appeals  from  Jersey  and  Rhode  Island.    Privy 
Council  Register,  "George  II,"  vol.  x,  258. 

210  See  the  Privy  Council  Repistfx  for  the  period. 


ioo        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

called  one  for  plantation  affairs.211  The  attendance  of 
others,  such  as  the  president  of  the  Board,  the  presi 
dent  of  the  council,  and  one  or  both  of  the  chief  jus 
tices  is  not  materially  different  from  what  it  was  dur 
ing  the  earlier  reigns.  Halifax  seems  to  have  been  a 
little  less  constant  in  his  attendance  after  the  increase 
in  the  authority  of  the  Board  than  he  was  before.  He 
and  the  others  mentioned  above,  however,  attended 
committees  bearing  different  names  without  apparent 
discrimination. 

A  great  deal  of  the  work  of  council  committees  was 
of  a  purely  formal  character,  such  as  referring  papers 
to  the  proper  officials  or  boards.  It  was,  apparently, 
only  more  important  business  which  brought  out  the 
chief  officers  of  state,  routine  matters  being  largely 
left  to  the  president  of  the  council  and  its  minor  mem 
bers. 

As  this  committee  had  no  special  title,  the  clerks 
evidently  tried  to  make  the  name  descriptive  of  the 
chief  business  transacted  at  the  meeting,  which  was 
the  simplest  method  of  making  the  entries.  As  time 
went  on  usage  settled  upon  three  or  four  descriptive 
titles  for  the  various  meetings,  and  these  appear  in  the 
Board  of  Trade  papers,  and  in  the  colonial  records. 
Such  names,  however,  are  descriptive  and  not  specific, 
and  do  not  represent  distinct  organs  of  the  Privy  Coun 
cil,  as  there  was  but  one  committee  of  that  body,  name 
ly,  the  Committee  of  the  whole  Council,  which  had 
power  to  hear  and  dispose  of  any  business  that  await 
ed  the  action  of  a  committee. 

The  relation  of  the  Board  of  Trade  to  the  Privy 

211  Newcastle  rarely  attended  these  committee  meetings  from  1735  to  1748. 
Bedford  attended  frequently  while  he  was  in  office. 


RELATIONS  TO  OTHER  DEPARTMENTS      101 

Council  was  a  combination  of  its  relation  to  the  coun 
cil  and  to  this  committee  of  many  names.  Colonial 
laws,  especially  those  from  the  charter  colonies,  were 
transmitted  to  the  council  and  by  it  referred  to  the 
Board.  The  same  was  true  of  petitions,  complaints, 
etc.212  All  formal  actions  of  the  Board,  such  as  ap 
pointment  of  members  of  colonial  councils,  instruc 
tions,  recommendations,  and  representations  had  to  be 
transmitted  to  the  council  for  registration  and  approv 
al  before  they  were  binding.  For  many  years  these 
were  disposed  of  directly  by  the  council,  but  after 
ward  they  were  regularly  referred  to  the  committee 
and  were  approved  and  registered  only  on  its  favora 
ble  report. 

This  committee  was  not  hostile  to  the  Board  as 
latter's  president  was  usually  one  of  the  most  regular 
attendants  at  its  meetings.  It  was  the  body,  however, 
which  coordinated  all  the  various  divisions  of  colonial 
administration.  Here  was  represented  in  the  per 
sons  of  the  secretaries  of  state  and  the  chief  justices  the 
highest  administrative  and  legal  authority  in  the  na 
tion.  So  long  as  the  Board  of  Trade  was  not  itself 
responsible  for  colonial  affairs,  it  was  necessary  that 
the  men  who  were  responsible  to  the  nation  should 
direct  and  control  the  final  action  in  important  cases. 
This  responsibility  was  in  part  secured  by  having  all 
the  important  work  of  the  Board  reviewed  by  the 
committee.  If  the  Board  desired  to  explain  any  of 
its  actions  to  the  committee,  the  president  was  so  in 
structed;  and  the  committee  occasionally  directed  the 
president  of  the  Board  to  see  that  certain  things  were 

212  After  1722  they  were  regularly  referred,  first  to  the  committee,  and 
by  it  to  the  Board  of  Trade. 


102        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

stated  in  his  letters  to  colonial  officials.213  The  commit 
tee  sometimes  ignored  and  sometimes  disapproved 
the  recommendations  of  the  Board;  but,  considering 
the  importance  of  this  body  and  its  responsibility  to 
the  nation,  such  action  was  to  be  expected,  although  it 
might  lead  to  delays  in  colonial  administration  at 

ijcritical  times. 

^X  The  relations  of  the  Board  and  the  council  are  best 
seen  in  a  case  that  actually  came  up  for  determination. 
The  intestate  law  of  Connecticut  is  a  good  illustra 
tion.  This  had  been  annulled  by  the  decision  in  the 
famous  case  of  Winthrop  vs.  Lechmere,  and  the  effect 
of  the  decision  was  of  such  importance  that  Governor 
Talcott  and  the  legislature  of  Connecticut  determined 

*to  use  every  agency  possible  and  to  spare  no  expense 
in  getting  the  decision  reversed.  A  petition  to  the 
king  was  drawn  up  by  the  agents  of  the  colony,  who 
asked  that  a  bill  might  be  brought  into  Parliament  for 
quieting  the  people  in  their  estates  and  enabling  them 
to  bequeath  their  property  in  future  in  the  manner 
they  had  been  accustomed  to  under  their  former  law.214 
This  petition  was  read  before  the  council  and  referred 
to  the  "Committee  for  hearing  Appeales,  Complaints, 
etc.,"215  which  in  turn  referred  it  to  the  Board  of  Trade 
to  investigate  the  facts  and  report  with  recommenda- 

213  March  15,  1742,  a  Committee  of  Council  considered  a  representation 
of  the  Board  of  Trade  on  a  law  of  Massachusetts  creating  £3600  in  bills  of 
credit.     The   representation   was   read    and   "the    Committee   desired   Lord 
Monson,  first  Commissioner  for  Trade  and  Plantations,  to  recommend  it  to 
that  Board,  to  write  to  Governor  Shirley,   acquainting  him  with  the  ob 
jections  against  the  bill."  -  Privy  Council  Register,  "George  II,"  vol.  vii,  112. 

214  "Talcott  Papers"  in  Connecticut  Historical  Society  Collections,  vol.  iv, 
187. 

215  Order  in  Council  dated  June  10,  1730.     Ibid.,  200. 


RELATIONS  TO  OTHER  DEPARTMENTS       103 

tions.216  The  Board  summoned  the  agents,  heard  their 
testimony,  accepted  such  documentary  material  as  they% 
offered,  and  after  much  deliberation  reported  its  con 
clusions  in  the  form  of  a  representation.  This  pro 
posed  a  bill  which  granted  the  desired  legislation,  but 
at  the  same  time  abrogated  the  charter.  Any  pro 
ceedings  which  could  call  the  charter  in  question  were 
most  undesirable  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  Con 
necticut  officers;  consequently  the  agents,  through 
their  attorneys,  opposed  the  representation  of  the 
Board  before  the  Committee  of  Council.217 

That  case  brings  out  the  essential  difference  in  the 
nature  of  the  proceedings  before  the  Board  and  before 
the  committee.  The  Board  called  witnesses,  heard 
testimony,  asked  questions,  examined  written  proofs, 
and  so  arrived  at  the  facts  in  the  case.  These  facts 
were  then  submitted  in  writing,  together  with  recom 
mendations,  to  the  committee.  If  no  one  interfered, 
this  body  took  final  action  on  the  data  before  it.  If 
the  interested  parties  objected,  they  could  contest  the 
representation  before  the  Council  Committee.  If  it 
were  a  question  in  which  one  party  was  working  for  a 
certain  representation  and  another  against  it,  both, 
parties  could  be  and  usually  were  heard,218  but  the 
hearing  in  this  case  was  purely  of  the  nature  of  an 
appeal.  No  witnesses  were  called;  the  agent  could 
not  present  his  case  in  person,  but  had  to  present  it 

216  Reference  to  the  Board  of  Trade  by  the  Committee  of  Council,  June  15 
of  the  same  year.     "Talcott  Papers"  in  Connecticut  Historical  Society  Col 
lections,  vol.  iv,  201. 

217  Letter  of  Francis  Wilks,  the  London  agent  for  Connecticut,  to  Gover 
nor  Talcott.     Ibid.,  216-219. 

218  See  the  complaint  of  the  Mohegan  Indians  against  the  colony  of  Con 
necticut.     Ibid.,  vols.  iv,  v,  passim. 


104        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

through  his  counsel,  and  the  hearing  took  the  form  of 
a  legal  argument  of  opposing  lawyers.  With  the 
facts  as  found  by  the  Board  and  the  case  of  each  party, 
as  presented  by  the  lawyers,  before  it,  the  committee 
either  made  a  definite  recommendation  to  the  Privy 
Council  or  remanded  the  whole  matter  to  the  Board 
of  Trade  for  further  investigation.  Thus  the  com 
mittee  was  not  only  a  body  for  keeping  colonial  af 
fairs,  as  administered  by  the  Board,  closely  coordi 
nated  with  the  policy  of  the  cabinet,  but  it  was  also  a 
court  of  review  for  all  actions  of  the  Board. 

The  whole  machinery  of  the  British  government  for 
colonial  administration  included  a  Board  of  Trade 
to  investigate,  gather  facts,  and  make  recommenda 
tions;  a  Committee  of  the  Privy  Council  to  act  as  a 
board  of  review  and  a  court  of  appeals,  both  adminis 
trative  and  legal ;  and  the  Privy  Council,  meeting  with 
the  king,  before  which  all  final  actions  of  importance 
were  registered.  This  machinery  was  often  slow  in 
action,  but  the  provision  for  appeals  before  registra 
tion,  and  even  the  necessity  of  registration,  afforded 
all  interests  an  opportunity  to  be  heard,  and  in  the 
long  run  it  was  better  to  sacrifice  speed  for  fairness. 
*** Frequently  the  opposing  interests  abused  the  privi 
lege  of  appeal  by  dilatory  motions  before  the  Board 
and  the  Committee,  such  as  requests  for  time  to  secure 
proofs  from  America,  delays  to  enable  an  agent  to 
secure  instructions  in  regard  to  some  matter  that  was 
being  considered,  and  even  repetitions  of  these  re 
quests.  Another  method  of  delaying  final  action  was 
to  present  a  counter  proposal  in  some  form.  The  de 
lays  and  evasive  tactics  became  so  apparent  in  the 
case  of  the  boundary  dispute  between  Massachusetts 


RELATIONS  TO  OTHER  DEPARTMENTS       105 

and  Rhode  Island,  that  the  Committee  of  Council  at 
tempted  a  reform. 

This  boundary  controversy  had  existed  since  1664. 
In  1734  Rhode  Island  petitioned  the  king  to  deter 
mine  the  question,  inasmuch  as  the  colonies  had  failed 
to  do  so  through  their  own  commissioners.  This  peti 
tion  passed  through  the  regular  form  of  reference,  by 
Order  of  Council  to  the  Committee  of  the  Privy 
Council  for  Plantation  Affairs,  and  by  that  body  to 
the  Board  of  Trade.  There  each  party  was  heard  by 
agents  and  counsel  and  proofs  were  submitted  on  both 
sides.  Finally,  in  1738,  the  Board  reported  that  com 
missioners  should  be  appointed  by  the  crown  to  mark 
out  and  settle  the  disputed  boundary.  This  represen 
tation  went  to  the  committee;  and  while  it  was  pend 
ing  there,  Francis  Wilks,  the  agent  for  Massachusetts 
Bay,  petitioned  to  be  heard  against  the  said  represen 
tation.219  This  petition  was  referred  by  Order  in  Coun 
cil  to  the  committee,220  which  heard  what  Wilks  had 
to  offer  against  the  representation  of  the  Board,  and 
reported  to  the  king  in  council  that  the  petition  should 
be  denied,  and  that  the  proposed  commission  should 
be  appointed. 

In  addition,  however,  the  committee  sought  to 
check  such  dilatory  motions  for  the  future,  by  the 
following  recommendation : 

And  the  said  petition  appearing  to  the  Lords  of  the  commit 
tee  to  be  frivolous  and  vexatious  and  to  have  been  preferred 
only  with  intent  to  delay  and  prevent  the  settling  of  the  boun- 

219  privy  Council  Register,  "George  II,"  vol.  vi,  12. 

220  This  committee  is  designated  as  the  one  on  "Plantation  Affairs."     The 
meeting  was  held  November  i,  1738.     Those  present  were  the  Lord  Presi 
dent,  Earl  of  Abercorne,  Lord  Harrington,  Lord  Monson,  Mr.  Speaker,  Lord 
Chief  Justice  Willes. 


io6        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

daries  of  the  said  provinces,  their  Lordships  humbly  conceive 
it  may  be  necessary  in  order  to  prevent  such  frivolous  and 
vexatious  applications  for  the  future  which  tend  not  only  to 
delay  and  interrupt  the  course  of  proceedings  but  also  to  bring 
unnecessary  expense  upon  those  who  are  obliged  to  defend 
themselves  against  such  application  that  Your  Majesty 
may  be  pleased  to  order  that  the  Lords  of  Your  Majesty's 
most  honorable  Privy  Council  for  Plantation  Affairs  do  not 
proceed  upon  any  applications  by  petition  or  otherwise  praying 
to  be  heard  against  any  determinations  of  the  Lords  Commis 
sioners  for  Trade  and  Plantations  upon  any  matters  which 
have  or  shall  be  referred  to  them  by  Your  Majesty  in  Council 
or  by  the  Lords  of  the  Committee  for  Plantation  Affairs,  upon 
which  it  shall  appear  that  the  said  Lords  Commissioners  have 
heard  the  persons  concerned,  either  by  themselves  their  coun 
sel  or  agents  unless  such  petitioner  or  petitioners  or  some 
person  in  his  or  their  behalf  do  first  enter  into  some  sufficient 
security  to  pay  such  costs  as  shall  be  awarded  by  Your  Majesty 
in  Council  thereupon.  And  their  Lordships  do  further  humbly 
pray  that  Your  Majesty  may  be  pleased  to  order  the  same  rule 
to  be  observed  in  all  cases,  which  shall  come  before  the  said 
committee  of  Council  in  consequence  of  any  commissions  that 
may  have  been  or  shall  hereafter  be  issued  by  order  of  Your 
Majesty  in  council  for  settling  or  adjusting  any  boundaries  or 
other  special  matters  in  dispute  in  any  of  Your  Majesty's  Col 
onies  on  Plantations  in  America. 

This  recommendation  was  embodied  in  an  Order  in 
Council  and  remained  as  a  rule  of  procedure  before 
the  committee.221 

By  this  order  the  Committee  of  Council  was  made 
even  more  strictly  a  court  of  appeals  than  before,  and 
from  its  date,  November  30,  1738,  it  was  necessary  to 
give  bond  before  any  person  would  be  heard  before 
the  committee  against  any  representation,  order,  in- 

221  privy  Council  Register,  "George  II,"  vol.  vi,  12-36. 


RELATIONS  TO  OTHER  DEPARTMENTS       107 

struction,  or  recommendation  of  the  Board.222  This 
added  to  the  expense  of  the  prosecution  of  affairs  at 
the  Board  of  Trade  and  before  the  council,  yet  the 
colonies  could  not  safely  spare  any  expense  when  their 
interests  were  at  stake. 

The  pleading  of  causes  before  the  committee  was  a 
phase  of  legal  practice  which  became  so  important 
that  some  lawyers  made  a  specialty  of  that  class  of 
business.  The  best  legal  talent  in  England  was  fre 
quently  employed  by  contestants,  and  even  the  attor 
ney-  and  solicitor-generals  at  times  appeared  as  coun 
sel.223  Ferdinando  John  Paris  was  perhaps  the  most 
efficient  of  the  lawyers  who  were  frequently  employed 
by  the  colonies,  and  his  letters  reveal  both  the  custom 
ary  methods  of  procedure  and  the  tricks  which  were 
sometimes  employed  to  win  a  case.224 

The  Secretary  of  State  and  Executive  Boards 

The  relation  of  the  Board  of  Trade  to  the  secretary 
of  state  for  the  Southern  Department  is  difficult  to 
state,  as  it  varied  from  time  to  time.  The  secretary 
was  responsible  for  all  colonial  business  and  the  Board 
was  in  a  great  measure  only  a  division  of  his  depart 
ment.  Some  colonial  business  was  transacted  direct 
ly  by  the  secretary,  although  much  of  it  was  in  the 
hands  of  the  Board.  The  amount  of  work  done  in 
the  secretary's  office  was  not  the  same  under  different 

222  References  to  this  regulation  are  frequently  met  with.     See  especially 
the  letters  of  Ferdinando  John  Paris  in  the  New  Jersey  Archives,  passim. 

223  Attorney-general  York  and  Solicitor-general  Talbot  were  attorneys  for 
Winthrop    in   his   case    against  Lechmere.     Connecticut   Historical    Society 
Collections,  vol.  v,  77. 

224  See   the  tricks  of  Winthrop's   attorneys   in   the  hearing  before   the 
council  in  the  case  of  Winthrop  vs.  Lechmere,  cited  in  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  78. 


io8        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

administrations,  and  seems  to  have  been  determined 
by  the  personal  wishes  of  the  official  in  charge.  At 
times  he  left  the  whole  management  of  colonial  af 
fairs  to  the  Board ;  at  other  times  he  transferred  almost 
all  of  its  work  to  his  own  office. 

Until  after  the  accession  of  George  I  the  general 
rule  was  to  give  the  Board  a  free  hand,  and  to  hold  it 
responsible  for  all  colonial  correspondence,  instruc 
tions,  and  even  the  main  features  of  administrative 
policy.  The  secretary  of  state,  however,  was  the  head 
of  the  colonial  department  and  kept  a  close  grasp  of 
all  that  went  on.  William  Penn  appears  to  have  de 
pended  upon  his  influence  with  the  chief  ministers  to 
ward  of!  any  hostile  attacks  from  the  Board;  but  his 
letters  indicate  that  it  was  not  an  easy  task  at  times, 
especially  when  the  Board  was  attacking  his  proprie 
tary  rights.22**  None  of  the  secretaries  permitted  any 
action  which  had  even  the  appearance  of  ignoring 
their  office^  Sunderland  at  one  time  required  that 
all  representations  of  the  Board  to  the  queen  should 
be  sent  to  him,  as  he  had  a  right  to  know  the  contents 
of  any  document  relating  to  his  department  before  it 
was  submitted  to  the  sovereign.225  Carteret  enforced 
the  same  rule  during  his  administration,  and  there  are 
many  entries  in  the  Board  of  Trade  Journal  of  re- 

224a  See  the  Penn-Logan  Correspondence,  vol.  i,  passim. 

225  "Amongst  the  papers  which  were  carried  yesterday  to  the  Council 
to  be  laid  before  the  queen  there  was  one  from  your  Board  in  behalf  of 
Colonel  Lambert  to  be  Lieutenant-governor  of  Nevis;  which  I  was  surprised 
to  find,  having  never  seen  it,  or  heard  anything  of  that  matter  from  you 
before.  I  thought  it  had  been  usual  to  acquaint  the  secretary  of  state  with 
all  business  that  relates  immediately  to  his  province  before  it  be  brought  to 
the  Council;  I  am  sure  it  is  so  reasonable  that  I  may  very  well  expect  it; 
therefore  I  must  desire  that  it  may  be  so  for  the  future."  —  Sunderland  to 
the  Board,  January  3,  1707,  C.O.  324,  9,  p.  133. 


RELATIONS  TO  OTHER  DEPARTMENTS       109 

quests  that  he  lay  the  enclosed  representation  before 
the  king.22£  The  more  common  practice,  however,  was 
to  send  the  original  representation  to  the  council  and 
a  copy  of  it  to  the  secretary  of  state  for  his  informa 
tion.227  In  addition  to  this  the  Board  regularly  sent  a 
letter  to  the  secretary  of  state  summarizing  the  changes 
in  such  long  documents  as  the  instructions  to  a  gov 
ernor,228  which  could  be  done  in  one  or  two  pages, 
while  the  document  itself  covered  nearly  a  hundred. 
/Certain  kinds  of  business  were  regularly  referred 
directly  to  the  secretary  of  state  by  the  Board.  In 
general  these  were  questions  which  involved  the  rela 
tions  of  the  colonies  to  foreign  countries,  such  as  dis 
putes  over  the  boundary  between  the  French  and  the 
English  in  the  Ohio  country  or  in  the  region  of  the 
Great  Lakes ; 229  events  which  concerned  the  regula 
tion  or  disposal  of  the  armed  forces  in  America;  rela 
tions  with  the  Indians,  especially  if  they  threatened 
trouble;230  violations  of  the  trade  and  navigation 
laws ; 2£1  and  domestic  disorders,  such  as  the  riots  in 
New  Jersey  over  land  titles  or  the  resistance  to  the 

226  jsjew  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  v,   584,  650,  and  passim  give 
copies  of  many  of  these  letters. 

227  Sunderland  made  this  the  rule,  June  i,  1708,  for  the  rest  of  his  admin 
istration. 

228  Sometimes    these   were   also   addressed  to  the  Privy   Council   or  its 
Committee.     See  the  Journal  for  the  years  1725-1749. 

220  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  v,  815,  845,  vols.  vi,  vii,  passim. 

230 —  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  468,  815,  and  passim,  vol.  vi,  772-773  and  passim, 
vol.  vii,  passim;  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  vol.  iii,  334. 

231  January  5,  1708,  the  Board  notified  Sunderland  of  illegal  trading  it 
had  discovered  between  Carolina  and  Portugal  by  way  of  Rhode  Island.  It 
advised  that  the  only  successful  method  of  breaking  it  up  would  be  to  em 
power  the  British  consul  in  Portugal  to  examine  all  ships  from  the  plantations 
and  seize  all  that  carried  prohibited  goods.  See:  Board  to  Sunderland,  C.O. 
5,  1292,  p.  73.  Many  similar  instances  are  given  in  the  records.  See,  also: 
Beer,  Geo.  British  Colonial  Policy,  1754-1765,  229-244,  for  a  full  discussion 


no        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

Stamp  Act.232  Sometimes  information  on  the  above 
was  received  in  the  letters  of  the  colonial  officials  and 
sometimes  by  direct  testimony  before  the  Board.233  In 
either  case  it  was  promptly  transmitted  to  the  secre 
tary  of  state  for  his  information. 

The  secretaries  of  state  were  members  of  the  Board 
of  Trade  but  were  excused  from  regular  attendance. 
When  questions  of  more  than  ordinary  importance 
came  up,  they  were  summoned  to  attend,  and  were 
occasionally  present  without  special  invitation.234  The 
secretary  of  state  for  the  Southern  Department  at 
tended  more  frequently  than  did  other  members  of  the 
ministry,  but  on  several  occasions  practically  the  whole 
cabinet  was  present  at  the  Board  meetings.235  The 
subjects  under  consideration  which  led  to  these  con 
ferences  with  the  ministers  were  Indian  Wars  in 
America,  bounties  on  naval  stores,236  provisions  for  the 
settlement  of  the  Germans  from  the  Palatinate,237  and 
the  disorders  in  New  Jersey.  The  Board  was  request- 

of  illegal  trade  and  the  general  reference  of  such  information  to  the  secre 
tary  of  state. 

232  Any  serious  situation  in  the  government  of  any  colony  was  regularly 
brought  to  the  attention  of  the  secretary  of  state.     See:  New  York  Colonial 
Documents,  vol.  vi,  597;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  vii,  299. 

233  For  an  investigation  of  illegal  trade  to  Curagoa,  in  which  witnesses 
appeared  before  the  Board,  see:  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  21,  pp.  270-336. 

234  See:  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  21,  p.  98;  23,  p.  100;  28,  January  8, 
13,  27,  28;  36,  pp.  84,  87,  115. 

235  April   14,   1726,   Newcastle   and  Townshend  were   in   attendance  as 
members  of  the  Board.     Trade  to  Africa  was  under  consideration  and  they 
attended  regularly  for  several  days.     Newcastle,  Bedford,   Sandwich,   and 
Pelham  attended  the  Board,  July  12,  1749,  to  consider  the  disorders  in  New 
Jersey.     See:  Board  of  Trade  Journal,   36,   pp.  57,  84-225;   also  Board  of 
Trade  Commercial  Series  I,  13,  M.  88  and  Commercial  Series  II,  646,  pp. 
256,  284. 

236  January  8  and  13,  1719,  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  28. 

237  —  Ibid.,  21,  p.  98. 


RELATIONS  TO  OTHER  DEPARTMENTS       in 

ed  to  attend  cabinet  meetings  and  the  Committee  of 
the  Privy  Council,  even  more  frequently  than  it  sum 
moned  the  chief  officers  of  state  to  attend  its  own  meet 
ings.238  In  this  way  the  work  of  the  secretary  of  state's 
office  was  closely  connected  with  that  of  the  Board  of 
Trade. 

iXThe  Board  was  kept  informed  of  whatever  was 
done  in  the  secretary  of  state's  office  relating  to  the 
colonies  until  the  accession  of  George  I.  April  14, 
1715,  the  Board  requested  Secretary  Stanhope  to  give 
it  notice  of  any  nominations  of  lieutenant-governors 
in  the  colonies  before  their  commissions  were  issued, 
so  that  it  could  object  to  unsatisfactory  or  unsuitable 
officers.  This  request  was  disregarded,  and  George 
Vaughn  was  appointed  lieutenant-governor  of  New 
Hampshire  without  consulting  the  Board.  This  ac 
tion  brought  forth  an  unusually  crisp  note  from  the 
latter  on  the  unfitness  of  Vaughn  for  his  office,  be 
cause  he  was  a  trader  and  an  owner  of  saw-mills  and 
hence  was  not  interested  in  protecting  the  woods.239 

238  October  14,  1729,  the  Board  was  summoned  to  attend  the  Committee  of 
Council  on  a  hearing  of  two  of  its  representations.     In  January,  1731,   it 
was  asked  to  appear  before  the  same  Committee  to  assist  in  the  consideration 
of  the  bill  advocated  by  the  sugar  islands.     See:  Board  of  Trade  Journal, 
39,  p.  262;  41,  p.  16. 

239  In  stating  the  unfitness  of  Vaughn,  the  Board  quoted  from  a  letter  of 
Bellomont's  in  regard  to  the  appointment  of  Partridge  to  the  same  position 
as  more  to  the  point  than  anything  it  could  say. 

"Mr.  Partridge  is  a  millwright  by  trade,  which  is  a  sort  of  carpenter,  and 
to  set  a  carpenter  to  preserve  woods,  is  like  setting  a  wolf  to  keep  sheep;  I 
say,  to  preserve  woods,  for  I  take  it  to  be  the  chiefest  part  of  the  trust  and 
business  of  a  lieutenant-governor  of  that  province,  to  preserve  the  woods  for 
the  king's  use. 

"Besides  he  is  of  the  country,  and  the  interest  of  England  is  neither  in 
his  head  or  heart.  If  it  be  not  presumption  in  me  to  give  advice,  I  wish 
some  few  things  were  observ'd  in  the  management  of  the  plantations  for  the 
time  to  come.  First,  that  there  be  great  care  taken  in  the  choice  of  the  per- 


iia        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

Apparently  Stanhope  ignored  this  protest;  and  as  colo 
nial  business  was  gradually  transferred  to  the  secretary 
of  state's  officer-file  Board  became  a  mere  bureau  of 
information  for  other  parts  of  the  government. 

Correspondence  with  the  royal  governors  had  regu 
larly  been  conducted  by  the  Board  of  Trade,  although 
governors  also  frequently  sent  almost  identical  letters 
to  the  secretary  of  state.  Any  matter  of  grave  impor 
tance  in  a  colony  was  reported  directly  to  the  latter  by 
the  governor,  and  a  statement  of  the  matter  also  sent 
to  the  Board.  During  the  administration  of  Newcas 
tle  all  this  was  changed,  as  he  took  over  practically 
the  entire  correspondence  with  the  colonial  governors. 
Their  important  letters  were  then  addressed  to  him; 
and  more  or  less  frequently  a  summary  of  their  con 
tents  was  sent  to  the  Board.  As  Newcastle  had  also 
taken  over  practically  all  of  the  executive  and  admin 
istrative  work  of  the  Board,  there  was  very  little  for 
the  latter  body  to  do,  except  when  it  had  matters  di 
rectly  referred  to  it  for  consideration.  For  that  rea 
son  the  letters  of  the  Board  to  the  colonial  governors 
became  short  and  infrequent.  The  average  of  one 
letter  to  each  governor  every  two  years  during  this 
time  was  not  due  to  any  difficulty  of  communication 
or  of  getting  work  done  in  the  plantation  office.  It 
was  simply  because  the  Board  had  nothing  to  say.  If 

sons  employ'd  by  the  king,  from  the  governor  to  the  meanest  officer;  I  mean 
that  they  be  men  of  undoubted  probity  and  well  born ;  secondly,  that  they 
be  not  men  of  the  country,  but  Englishmen.  Thirdly,  that  they  be  men  of 
some  fortune  in  England,  to  be  a  tye  upon  them  to  behave  themselves  hon 
ourably  in  their  respective  trusts." 

The  Board  expressed  its  hearty  agreement  with  this  opinion  and  added 
that,  as  Vaughn  was  interested  in  several  saw  mills,  he  was  not  one  who 
would  care  for  the  woods.  See:  Board  of  Trade  to  Stanhope,  August  3, 
1715,  C.O.  5,  914,  pp.  85-87.  Cf.  Chalmers,  Geo.  Introduction  to  the  Revolt. 


RELATIONS  TO  OTHER  DEPARTMENTS       113 

letters  from  America  required  replies,  they  were  sup 
posed  to  emanate  from  Newcastle's  office,  and  not  from 
the  Board.240  The  latter  was  inefficient,  of  course,  but 
it  was  solely  because  the  secretary  of  state  had  made  it 
so.  This  period  of  inefficiency  is  in  marked  contrast 
with  the  energy  shown  in  the  earlier  years  of  the  Board 
and  can  be  explained  only  by  the  pernicious  influence 
of  Newcastle.241* 

He  practically  ignored  the  Board  on  all  questions 
of  colonial  administration  and  did  not  even  take  the 
trouble  to  inform  it  of  the  various  orders  which  were 
issued  by  his  office,  the  instructions  given  to  colonial 
officials,  or  the  permits  for  them  to  absent  themselves 
from  their  posts  of  duty.  This  condition  is  disclosed 
by  the  regular  and  repeated  requests  of  the  Board  for 
Newcastle  to  furnish  information  as  to  what  was  done, 

240  Governor  Belcher  in  his  letters  to  his  brother-in-law  and  agent  in 
London,  Mr.  Richard  Partridge,  frequently  speaks  of  appealing  over  the 
heads  of  the  Board  to  the  secretary  of  state,  indicating  a  clear  knowledge 
of  where  the  real  authority  resided.  See:  Massachusetts  Historical  Society 
Collections,  sixth  series,  vol.  vi,  passim. 

^  241  Channing  {History  of  the  United  States,  vol.  ii,  235-236]  indicates 
that  the  delay  in  answering  letters  at  times  was  chargeable  to  the  clerks. 
He  has  evidently  overlooked  the  periods  of  varying  efficiency  due  to  varying 
authority. 

Apparent  slowness  in  reading  communications  after  they  were  received 
may  easily  lead  to  wrong  inferences,  as  the  term  "read"  was  used  by  the 
Board  in  a  technical  sense.  It  meant  read  officially  to  a  quorum  of  the  Board. 
No  doubt  all  letters  were  opened  by  the  secretary  of  that  body  and  their 
contents  known  to  some  of  the  members  long  before  they  were  read  in  a 
technical  sense. 

In  1700  letters  from  Maryland,  written  on  February  2,  March  12,  and 
May  28  were  read  respectively  on  May  14,  July  26,  and  July  30,  following. 
This  shows  an  average  of  only  a  little  more  than  two  months  between  the 
writing  of  a  letter  and  its  reading  by  the  Board.  See:  Board  of  Trade 
Journal,  13.  The  New  York  Colonial  Documents  show  the  same  promptness 
for  letters  from  that  colony.  They  also  show  similar  efficiency  after  Halifax 
became  president  of  the  Board. 


ii4        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

and  further  requests  that  it  be  notified  from  time  to 
time  of  the  business  transacted  in  his  office.  But  the 
later  repetition  of  similar  requests  indicates  that  they 
were  ignored  by  Newcastle  and  that  the  Plantation 
Office  remained  in  ignorance  of  what  was  or  was  not 
done.242  This  condition,  added  to  the  absorption  by 
the  secretary  of  state  of  the  chief  work  of  the  Board, 
made  membership  on  the  latter  a  mere  sinecure ;  but 
it  was  only  because  Newcastle  had  made  it  so.  The 
whole  responsibility  for  conditions,  good  or  bad,  rests 
upon  him. 

Conditions  changed  soon  after  the  appointment  of 
Halifax  as  head  of  the  Board,  because  the  relations 
with  the  secretary  of  state  were  changed.243  Business 
was  transferred  back  to  the  Plantation  Office ;  and,  be 
cause  of  the  insistent  demands  of  Halifax,  more  and 
more  authority  was  given  to  the  Board,  until  it  had 
practically  the  full  power  of  a  secretary  of  state.  It 
retained  this  power  for  a  number  of  years,  was  reduced 

242  March  12,  1725,  the  Board  requested  Newcastle  to  apprise  it  of  what 
ever  passed  in  his  office  relating  to  the  plantations.     See:  Board  of  Trade 
Journal,  35,  p.  63.     August  23,  1727,  it  wrote  him  again  that:    "Upon  looking 
into  our  books,  we  find  our  predecessors  have  sometimes  found  themselves 
under  difficulties  for  want  of  being  informed  of  such  commissions,  orders  or 
instructions  as  may  have  passed  in  the  secretaries'  offices  for  persons  and 
matters  relating  to  the  plantations.     And  therefore  we  desire  your  Grace 
would  be  pleased  to  give  directions  that  for  the  future  proper  notice  may  be 
given  to  this  Board  of  all  such  commissions,  orders  and  instructions  which 
we  apprehend  will  be  for  His  Majesty's  service."  —  C.O.  324,  u,  p.  50. 

July  31,  1735,  the  Board  addressed  a  similar  letter  to  him  and  called  his 
attention  to  its  letter  of  1727,  and  asked  for  particular  information  about 
leaves  of  absence.  See:  Ibid.,  12,  p.  123. 

243  The  friendly  relations  between  Bedford  and  Halifax  have  already 
been  indicated.     The  letters  of  F.  J.  Paris  to  James  Alexander  also  indicate 
that  whatever  information  reached  the  secretary  of  state  was  soon  known 
to  the  president  of  the  Board.     This  was  particularly  true  in  1749.     See: 
New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  vii,  238. 


RELATIONS  TO  OTHER  DEPARTMENTS       115 

in  authority  for  a  short  time  in  1761, 24*  and  again  in 
1766;  but  in  1768  the  president  was  made  a  full  secre 
tary  of  state  for  the  colonies,  thus  rendering  him  en 
tirely  independent  of  the  secretary  for  the  Southern 
Department,  and  remained  so  until  the  Board  was 
abolished  in  1782. 

The  Administrative  Boards 

The  Board  of  Trade  and  the  commissioners  of  cus 
toms  were  mutually  helpful  to  each  other.  The  en 
forcement  of  the  acts  of  trade  rested  largely  with  the 
customs  officials ;  but  it  was  necessary  that  they  should 
have  the  countenance  and  support  of  the  governors,245 
all  instructions  to  whom  were  drawn  up  in  the  planta 
tion  office.  A  part  of  these  instructions  dealt  specif 
ically  with  the  enforcement  of  the  acts  of  trade  and 
navigation,  and  before  they  were  submitted  to  the  king 
in  council,  they  were  sent  to  the  commissioners  of 
customs  for  their  ratification.246  This  gave  the  latter 
an  opportunity  to  add  any  new  clauses  or  omit  any  old 
ones  in  order  to  make  the  instructions  correspond  with 
changes  which  were  made  in  the  laws  from  time  to 
time.  Thus,  while  the  Board  drafted  the  governors' 

244  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  69,  p.  265. 

245  «A  complaint  made  by  the  commissioners  of  her  Majesty's  customs  in 
Barbadoes  to  the  Lords  commissioners  of  her  Majesty's  treasury  having  been 
referred  to  our  consideration,"  it  was  found  that  he  and  other  officers  had 
become  unpopular  because  of  their  enforcement  of  the  laws  of  trade.     ''We 
found  it  absolutely  necessary  that  not  only  the  officers  of  the  customs,  but 
also  of  the  admiralty  should  be  very  particularly  recommended  to  the  re 
spective  governors  of  all  His  Majesty's  plantations."  — Report  of  Matthew 
Prior  to  the  House  of  Commons,  April  24,  1702,  in  Commons  Journal,  vol. 
xiii,  502. 

246  Note   the   modification   of    Governor   Lovelace's   instructions    at  the 
request  of  the  commissioners  of  customs.     See:  New  York  Colonial  Docu 
ments,  vol.  v,  41. 


n6        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

instructions,  their  content,  so  far  as  trade  laws  were 
concerned,  was  determined  by  the  commissioners  of 


customs.247 


Sometimes  the  latter  officials  conferred  directly 
with  the  Board,  as  they  did  in  January,  1709,  when 
they  discussed  the  desirability  of  a  Virginia  law  estab 
lishing  ports  in  that  province,  the  administration  of 
the  law  recently  passed  by  Parliament  granting  boun 
ties  on  naval  stores  imported  from  the  plantations,  and 
the  question  of  proper  convoys  for  the  merchant  fleets 
from  America.248  Other  similar  conferences  were  held 
from  time  to  time  as  business  seemed  to  require  it.  All 
laws  passed  in  the  colonies,  which  in  any  way  affected 
the  customs  or  the  enforcement  of  the  trade  laws,  were 
sent  to  the  commissioners  of  customs  for  their  criti 
cism.  If  they  found  any  serious  objections  to  any  such 
laws,  the  Board  recommended  them  for  the  royal 
veto.249 

f/Fhe  Board  of  Trade  and  the  customs  officials  were 
also  mutually  helpful  to  each  other  as  information 
bureaus.  Governors  were  called  upon  to  furnish  re 
ports  of  the  violation  of  the  acts  of  trade  and  the  best 
means  of  enforcing  them.  This  information  was 

247  Every  copy  of  an  instruction  was  not  necessarily  sent  to  the  commis 
sioners  of  customs,  but  this  was  done  when  changes  were  made  in  them. 
Note  the  revision  in  1752  and  the  reference  to  the  opinion  of  the  customs 
officials  on  the  instructions  in  1737.     See:  C.O.  324,  15,  p.  324. 

248  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  19,  pp.  31-33. 

249  In  December,  1730,  the  Board  sent  a  law  of  Virginia  regulating  the 
shipping  of  tobacco,  to  the  commissioners  of  customs  for  their  opinion.    They 
returned  the  law  with  a  polite  refusal  to  express  an  opinion  unless  particu 
larly  directed  to  do  so  by  the  king.     When  it  was  explained  to  them  that 
it  was  only  an  opinion  so  far  as  their  own  board  was  concerned,  the  report 
was  given.     See:  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  12,  pp.  313,  326.     Other  reports 
were  regularly  made  and  will  be  discussed  more  fully  under  the  head  of 
disallowed  colonial  legislation. 


RELATIONS  TO  OTHER  DEPARTMENTS       117 

transmitted  to  the  secretary  for  the  commissioners  of 
customs  to  be  laid  before  that  board.250  On  the  other 
hand,  the  Board  of  Trade  had  frequent  recourse  to  the 
customs  officials  for  information.  Some  of  this  was 
for  statistical  data  of  the  exportation  of  various  articles 
from  America  to  England  and  the  colonial  imports 
of  British  goods,  the  trade  of  various  ports,  and  the 
actual  workings  of  various  trade  laws  affecting  the 
colonies.251  These  accounts  are  among  the  most  impor 
tant  extant  for  a  study  of  the  trade  conditions  in  Amer 
ica.  They  also  show  the  actual  operation  of  such 
laws  as  those  paying  bounties  for  naval  stores  pro 
duced  in  America,252  and  the  famous  Molasses  Act 
of  1733,  including  the  eloquent  story  of  its  evasion 
for  a  long  period  of  years.253 

i  The  customs  officials  in  America  were  also  used  by 
the  Board  to  gather  information,  and  Randolph  and 
Quary  became  its  most  active  secret  agents.  They 
were  untiring  in  their  search  for  evidence  which 
could  be  used  against  the  proprietary  and  charter 

250  See  the  Bellomont  correspondence,  in  New  York  Colonial  Documents, 
vol.  iv,  passim.     Not  infrequently  information  of  this  character  was  also  sent 
to  the  secretary  of  state.     See:  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  52,  p.  31 ;  Board  of 
Trade  Proprieties,  30,  p.  73. 

251  These  are  bound  up  mainly  in  the  Board  of  Trade  papers  known  as 
Commercial  Series  I,  although  many  are  to  be  found  in  the  set  known  as 
Plantations  General,  and  a  few  are  bound  up  in  the  most  unexpected  places. 
Beer  in  his  British  Colonial  Policy,  1754-1765,  has  made  extensive  use  of 
this  information  and  it  is  copiously  cited  in  his  footnotes. 

252  Board  of  Trade  Commercial  Series  I,  13,  M  12;  C.O.  323,  n,  K.  64. 

253  This  report  is  characteristic  of  all  and  was  as  follows: 

"An  account  of  the  amount  of  the  duties  paid  in  the  northern  colonies 
upon  the  importation  of  rum  or  spirits,  molasses  or  syrups,  sugar  and  panels 
of  the  growth  and  produce  of  any  foreign  settlements  from  the  year  1733  to 
the  present  time,  in  pursuance  of  the  acts  passed  in  the  6th  of  his  present 
Majesty's  reign  for  the  better  encouraging  the  trade  of  his  Majesty's  sugar 


n8        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

colonies;254  and,  as  the  encouragement  given  to  pirates 
and  the  failure  to  observe  the  acts  of  trade  were  the 
main  charges  against  those  governments,  the  policy 
of  the  Board  readily  dovetailed  into  the  plans  of  the 
customs  officials. 

The  Board  had  no  control  over  these  men,  although 
it  did  at  one  time  use  them  as  agents.255  Their  appoint 
ment  belonged  to  the  commissioners  of  customs  or 
their  political  superiors.  If  members  of  the  Board 
played  any  part  in  their  selection,  it  was  because  of 
their  personal  influence  with  those  who  held  the  ap- 

colonies  in  America,  distinguishing  each  year,  also,  how  much  of  the  said 
duties  was  received  on  merchandise  and  how  much  on  prizes. 

DUTIES 
Merchandise  Prize 


From  Xmas 

To  Xmas 

£ 

s. 

d. 

£ 

s. 

d. 

1733 

1734 

330 

ii 

xVa 

1734 

1735 

*5* 

4 

% 

1735 

1736 

292 

13 

9% 

1736 

1737 

220 

i 

6 

1737 

1738 

68 

16 

o 

1738 

1739 

108 

ii 

4 

1739 

1740 

25 

o 

o 

1740 

1741 

100 

15 

6 

1741 

1742 

722 

7 

6 

140 

i 

6 

1742 

1743 

461 

19 

i% 

41 

5 

9 

1743 

1744 

234 

17 

9 

66 

14 

2% 

1744 

1745 

98 

8 

9 

3081 

10 

6% 

1745 

1746 

354 

17 

7% 

124 

17 

3 

1746 

1747 

460 

15 

5% 

1259 

5 

3% 

1747 

1748 

693 

4 

6 

2762 

13 

4% 

1748 

1749 

1279 

o 

4% 

139 

16 

3 

5603  4  4%  7616  4  2 

Customs  House  London,  3  Dec.,  1750."  C.O.  5,  38,  Appendix  4. 

254  See  the  numerous  letters  of  Quary  to  the  Board,  in  New  York  Colonial 
Documents,  vols.  iv,  v,  passim;  Chalmers,  Geo.  Introduction  to  the  Revolt, 
vol.  i,  380;  Penn-Logan  Correspondence,  passim;  Shepherd,  Wm.  Proprie 
tary  Government  in  Pennsylvania,  355,  502-503,  508,  542. 

255  See  the  correspondence  with  Robert  Quary  and  Edward  Randolph,  in 
New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iv,  passim. 


RELATIONS  TO  OTHER  DEPARTMENTS       119 

^ ______^ «_^ 

pointing  power,  and  not  because  of  their  official  con 
nection  with  the  Board  of  Trade.  The  surveyors  of 
customs  were  members  of  the  councils  in  each  of  the 
royal  provinces  in  their  departments,  which  enabled 
them  to  perform  their  duties  to  better  advantage  and 
afforded  them  additional  opportunities  of  securing  in 
formation  for  the  Board. 

As  in  the  case  of  the  customs  and  the  admiralty  the 
Board  of  Trade  and  the  treasury  assisted  each  other. 
Claims  from  America  for  money  were  referred  to  the 
Board  for  its  opinion  as  to  whether  they  should  be 
paid.  Colonial  officers  also  appealed  to  it  for  aid  in 
securing  a  settlement  of  their  claims  upon  the  treasury. 
Perhaps  the  most  prominent  case  of  this  is  that  of 
Bridger  who,  for  many  years,  was  surveyor  of  the 
woods  in  America.256  According  to  his  own  accounts 
he  was  a  most  efficient  officer,  but  for  some  reason  he 
was  finally  dismissed  by  the  treasury  without  a  settle 
ment  of  his  salary  and  expenses.  As  he  had  consid 
ered  himself  chiefly  responsible  to  the  Board  of  Trade 
and  had  reported  most  regularly  to  that  body,  he  ap 
pealed  to  it  for  support  in  pressing  his  claims  upon 
the  treasury.  The  Board  also  asked  for  the  support 
of  the  treasury  in  securing  such  a  revision  of  the  laws 
of  trade  as  would  encourage  non-competitive  Ameri 
can  industries,  such  as  the  production  of  potash  257 
and  pig  iron. 
v  In  time  of  war  the  treasury  as  well  as  the  secretary 

*•  256  Board  of  Trade  to  the  commissioners  of  the  treasury,  October  22,  1719, 
C.O.  5,  915,  pp.  306-307. 

257  March  15,  1751,  the  Board  advised  the  treasury  officials  that  the  re 
moval  of  the  tariff  of  1672  upon  American  potash  would  encourage  its 
production  in  the  colonies.  See:  C.O.  324,  15,  pp.  172-174. 


AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

of  state  had  recourse  to  the  Board.  The  latter  needed 
information  as  to  the  condition  of  the  colonies  for  de 
fense,  how  many  troops  each  could  furnish,  what  kind 
and  what  quantity  of  arms  they  had,  and  the  time  nec 
essary  for  them  to  supply  their  forces  for  any  under 
taking.258 

In  the  last  two  wars  against  the  French,  the  crown 
adopted  the  policy  of  repaying  to  the  colonies  the 
principal  part  of  the  expenditures  which  they  had  in 
curred  in  aid  of  the  British  arms.  It  was  no  small 
task  to  apportion  the  parliamentary  grant  in  just  pro 
portion  to  the  actual  expenditures  of  the  different 
colonial  governments.  The  treasury  did  not  attempt 
the  task,  but  asked  the  Board  to  investigate  the  ac 
counts  and  claims  of  various  kinds  and  to  determine 
the  amount  of  money  justly  due  each  claimant.259 
Some  of  these  accounts  were  very  complicated,  as 
each  colony  had  its  own  paper  money  the  value  of 
which  was  not  the  same  in  any  two ;  and,  as  colonial 
accounts  were  in  terms  of  paper  money,  it  was  diffi 
cult  to  reduce  them  to  equivalent  sterling  values. 
Prices  of  clothing  and  supplies  also  varied  in  the  dif 
ferent  colonies,  and  some  commissaries  had  paid 
higher  prices  for  their  supplies  than  had  been  paid  by 
other  colonies  for  similar  goods.  It  was  manifestly 
unfair  to  pay  for  the  bad  bargaining  of  colonial  agents, 
as  it  might  become  a  means  of  fleecing  the  British 

258  See  the  report  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  May  n,  1756,  for  the  detailed 
information  it  supplied  for  the  use  of  other  departments  of  the  government 
in  time  of' war,  in  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  viii,  part  ii,  217. 

259  In  the  latter  part  of  1749  the  Board  had  under  its  consideration  the 
claims  of  the  northern  colonies  because  of  the  expedition  to  Canada.     See: 
Board  of  Trade  Journal,  57. 


RELATIONS  TO  OTHER  DEPARTMENTS       121 

treasury.  New  Jersey  had  a  number  of  claims  for 
unusual  charges  and  after  careful  investigation  the 
Board  rejected  them.260 

During  the  French  and  Indian  War  the  Chancellor 
of  the  Exchequer  asked  the  Board  for  advance  esti 
mates  of  the  colonial  expenditures,  which  were  fur 
nished  and  show  the  probable  expenses  of  each  col 
ony.261  Thus  the  Board  was  made  the  agency  for 
determining  the  amount  of  aid  the  colonies  should 
receive  and  for  distributing  these  large  sums  of  money 
among  them  in  accordance  with  their  deserts.  Even 
in  time  of  peace,  any  unusual  expenditure  in  behalf 
of  the  colonies  was  entrusted  to  the  Board,  such,  for 
example,  as  the  distribution  of  the  £103,300  for  the 
relief  of  the  settlers  in  Nevis  and  St.  Christopher  Is 
lands.262  In  this  case  the  act  of  Parliament  which  ap 
propriated  the  money  specified  that  the  Board  should 
take  charge  of  the  disbursements. 

jpfie  relations  of  the  Board  of  Trade  to  the  admiral-^ 
ty  were  very  similar  to  those  with  the  customs  officers. 
All  governors  were  given  instructions  as  to  admiralty 
jurisdiction;  but  these,  like  the  instructions  in  regard 
to  trade,  were  prepared  by  the  law  officers  of  the 
crown  and  the  Admiralty  Board.  The  governor's 
commission  for  holding  admiralty  courts  came  direct 
ly  from  the  admiralty,  and  the  Board  of  Trade  only 

260  See  the  detailed  report  of  the  Board,  February  28,  1750,  on  the  above, 
especially  its  discussion  of  the  claims  of  New  Jersey,  in  New  Jersey  Archives, 
vol.  vii,  383-400. 

261  See  the  request  of  Secretary  Hardinge  of  February  5,  1756,  and  the 
answer  of  the  Board  a  week  later,  in  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  viii,  part  ii, 
205  and  note. 

262  The  above  provision  is  a  part  of  the  act  for  licensing  hackney  coaches. 
See:  Commons  Journal,  vol.  xvii,  224. 


122        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

acted  as  a  forwarding  agent.  The  latter  was  also  able 
to  furnish  the  Admiralty  Board  with  information 
which  came  to  it  from  its  correspondence  with  the 
royal  governors,  the  surveyors  of  the  customs,  and 
from  direct  testimony  in  regard  to  illegal  trade.  In 
some  cases  of  this  kind  the  admiralty  was  asked  to 
furnish  protection  for  witnesses  who  had  promised 
to  testify  before  the  Board.263  It  was  also  informed  by 
the  latter  body  of  the  need  of  revenue  cutters  in  Amer 
ica  to  enforce  the  trade  laws,  and  the  places  where 
they  could  render  the  most  efficient  service.  The 
Board  also  rendered  efficient  aid  to  the  admiralty  in 
stamping  out  piracy  in  America  by  instructing  all 
its  officers  to  assist  in  destroying  the  nefarious  prac 
tice,  and  the  first  governor  sent  to  New  York  under 
the  Board  rendered  the  greatest  possible  service  in  this 
cause.264 

The  admiralty  had  the  general  disposition  of  the 
fleet,  and  at  times  the  Board  of  Trade  asked  that  war 
vessels  be  sent  to  America  to  protect  colonial  inter 
ests;  sometimes  the  admiralty  opposed  these  requests. 
Halifax  was  not  content  to  take  no  for  an  answer  in 
1750  when  he  desired  ships  of  force  for  the  protection 
of  Nova  Scotia  and  appealed  to  Newcastle  and  the 
rest  of  the  cabinet  to  overrule  the  admiralty  in  the 
matter.265  Such  cases  are  not  common,  but  this  inci- 

263  January  16,  1760,  the  Board  of  Trade  asked  the  admiralty  to  furnish 
protection  for  one,  Radcliffe  Cross,  a  mariner  who  had  promised  to  testify 
about  illegal  trade,  but  was  afraid  he  would  be  pressed  if  he  attended  the 
Board   as  often   as  the  latter  wished.     See:  Board  of  Trade  Commercial 
Series  77,  645,  p.  19. 

264  See  the  correspondence  of  Bellomont  with  the  various  executive  boards, 
in  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iv,  passim. 

265  "X.he  Board  of  Admiralty  being  of  opinion  that  it  will  not  be  neces 
sary  to  send  any  ships  of  force  to  Nova  Scotia,  I  take  it  for  granted  Lord 


RELATIONS  TO  OTHER  DEPARTMENTS       123 

dent  shows  how  insistent  an  able  and  energetic  man 
at  the  head  of  the  Board  could  be  in  securing  what  he 
conceived  necessary  from  the  admiralty. 

The  Bishop  of  London 

The  Bishop  of  London  exercised  ecclesiastical  jur-, 
isdiction  in  the  colonies,  and  was  an  ex  officio  mem 
ber  of  the  Board  of  Trade.266  His  relations  to  that 
body  were  very  similar  to  those  of  the  Admiralty 
Board  and  the  commissioners  of  customs.  He  used 
it  as  a  clearing  house  for  many  of  his  dealings  with 
the  colonies  and  through  it  controlled  the  governors' 
instructions  in  regard  to  ecclesiastical  affairs.  He 
usually  attended  the  Board  when  commissions  or  in 
structions  were  under  consideration,  and  in  case  he 
could  not  be  present,  copies  were  sent  to  him  for  his 
approval  before  they  were  submitted  to  the  council.-- 

Information  in  the  governors'  letters  which  con 
cerned  his  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  was  transcribed 
and  sent  to  him  for  his  information.268  In  this  way 

Sandwich  will  not  think  himself  obliged  to  lay  the  affair  before  the  Cabinet 
Council. 

"As  I  conceive  it  to  be  a  measure  absolutely  necessary  and  one,  which  if 
neglected,  is  likely  to  be  attended  with  the  worst  consequences,  I  have  in  the 
inclosed  paper  thrown  together  my  reasons  in  support  of  it  in  as  short  and 
clear  a  manner  as  I  have  been  able  to  do  and  beg  leave  to  submit  them  to 
your  Grace's  consideration.  If  they  have  weight  with  you,  My  Lord,  I 
hope  you  will  support  the  measure  proposed,  and  recommend  it  to  such  other 
ministers  as  compose  his  Majesty's  Cabinet  Council.  The  pursuance  of  it, 
My  Lord,  will  be  attended  by  neither  hazard  nor  expense ;  the  neglect  of  it 
will  probably  be  attended  by  both."  -  Halifax  to  Newcastle,  March  6,  1750,  in 
British  Museum  Additional  Manuscripts,  32724,  f.  165. 

266  His  name  is  given  among  the  other  great  officers  of  state  in  the  com 
mission  of  the  Board,  in  Board  of  Trade  Miscellanies,  12,  pp.  439-453-  The 
Journal  shows  he  was  present  on  many  occasions. 

_2.6JL-This  was  done  only  in  case  of  changes  in  that  portion  of  the  instruc 
tions  relating  to  ecclesiastical  affairs. 

268  This  was  done  in  the  case  of  Bellomont's  statements  as  to  the  needs 


124        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

he  was  supplied  with  a  great  deal  of  first-hand  knowl 
edge  of  religious  needs  and  conditions  in  America. 
He  frequently  gave  suggestions  as  to  how  conditions 
could  be  improved,  and  at  his  instance  the  Board  add 
ed  a  new  clause  to  the  governors'  instructions  which 
directed  them  to  see  that  suitable  laws  were  enacted 
for  the  punishment  of  blasphemy,  profanity,  adultery, 
polygamy,  profanation  of  the  Sabbath,  and  other 
crimes  against  common  morality.  The  instructions 
also  specified  that  these  laws  should  be  enforced  by 
the  civil  courts  upon  testimony  furnished  by  the 
church  wardens.269 

When  new  members  of  the  provincial  councils 
were  to  be  approved,  their  names  were  submitted  to 
the  bishop  for  any  objections  he  might  have  to  the 
religious  principles  of  any  of  the  men.270  Colonial 
laws  touching  religion  or  religious  questions  were 
referred  to  him  for  his  consideration  as  regarded  his 
ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,271  just  as  they  were  sent  to 
the  crown  attorneys  for  any  objection  "in  point  of 
law."  ,  Sometimes  the  bishop  was  requested  to  be 

of  religious  instruction  among  the  Indians.  See:  Board  of  Trade  Journal, 
12,  p.  429.  Extracts  from  Hunter's  letters  were  also  sent  to  him.  See:  C.O. 
5,  995,  P-  SOL 

269  The  bishop  had  petitioned  the  king  to  have  new  instructions  given  on 
this  point  and  also  in  regard  to  schools.  This  petition  was  referred  to  the 
Committee  of  Council,  which  on  May  3,  1727,  ordered  the  Board  to  prepare 
instructions  in  accordance  with  the  petition.  See:  New  Jersey  Archives, 
vol.  v,  160-161.  When  the  Board  took  up  the  matter  the  bishop  was  sum 
moned  to  assist  in  the  work.  See:  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  37,  p.  128.  See 
also  the  bishop's  request  that  protestant  ministers  alone  should  celebrate 
marriages,  Bishop  to  the  Board,  November  12,  1764,  New  Jersey  Archives, 
vol.  ix,  504. 


271  Note  what  was  done  with  the  North  Carolina  laws  in  1761,  C.O.  5, 
325,  p.  170. 


RELATIONS  TO  OTHER  DEPARTMENTS       125 

present  and  assist  the  Board  in  the  consideration  of 
such  laws,  as  was  done  in  1705  in  the  case  of  a  Mary 
land  law  relating  to  popery;272  at  other  times  the 
bishop  insisted  that  he  should  be  heard  before  laws 
were  confirmed.273  Any  serious  objection  by  him  was 
fatal  to  an  act  and  was  certain  to  lead  to  the  royal 
veto.274 

The  Board  did  not  always  show  entire  sympathy 
with  the  way  the  bishop  exercised  his  ecclesiastical 
control,  especially  with  the  class  of  ministers  which 
were  sent  to  the  colonies.  Complaints  of  the  char 
acter  of  several  of  these  had  come  to  the  Board,  and 
in  1715  that  body  informed  the  bishop  that  he  should 
see  that  "persons  of  piety,  principles  and  exemplary 
life"  should  be  sent  to  America.  It  also  informed 
him  that  it  had  received  accounts  of  some  ministers 
"which  rather  administers  to  the  occasion  of  scandal 
than  contributes  to  the  propagation  of  Christiani 
ty."  275 

Two  years  later  it  took  occasion  to  administer  an- 

272  The  following  entry  appears  in  the  Journal,  November  28,  1705 : 
"Ordered  that  a  letter  be  writ  to  the  Lord  Bishop  of  London  to  acquaint 
him  that  the  Board  are  desirous  of  his  Lordship's  assistance  tomorrow  morn 
ing  in  the  consideration  of  two  laws  lately  received  from  Maryland  relating 
to  popery."  He  was  present  the  next  day  and  was  listed  with  the  regular 
members.  Such  entries  are  common  in  similar  cases.  See:  Board  of  Trade 
Journal,  18,  p.  117;  37,  pp.  250-251. 

,27JL£ee  his  caveat  against  the  laws  of  Massachusetts  for  the  support  of 
ministers,  May  24,  1704,  Ibid.,  17,  p.  48. 

274  The  repeal  of  the  Virginia  law  for  the  payment  of  ministers'  salaries 
in  tobacco  was  due  in  part  to  an  objection  of  the  bishop,  C.O.  5,  1329,  X,  64. 
It  was  this  repeal  which  finally  led  to  the  famous  "Parsons'  Cause"  in  which 
Patrick  Henry  figured  as  an  attorney.  See  also  the  reference  to  the  bishop 
of  the  North  Carolina  Act  of  1755  establishing  parishes  and  providing  for 
the  clergy,  C.O.  5,  324,  p.  278. 

™  C.O.  5,  995,  P.  48- 


126        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

other  slight  rebuff  and  also  some  excellent  advice  to 
his  lordship.  A  complaint  had  been  made  against 
the  operation  of  the  bishop's  ecclesiastical  court  re 
cently  set  up  in  Barbadoes.  This  complaint  had  gone 
to  the  Board  for  investigation  and  was  finally  reported 
upon  as  follows : 

We  thought  it  our  duty  to  examine  upon  what  foot  the 
bishops'  authority  is  established  in  the  plantations ;  but  by  the 
best  enquiry  we  have  been  able  to  make,  we  can  find  no  other 
foundation  for  the  same,  but  an  article  in  the  general  instruc 
tions  to  all  your  Majesty's  governors  in  America;  nor  could 
the  bishop  inform  us  of  any  other;  tho'  in  all  probability  the 
plantations  may  have  been  formerly  recommended  to  the  in 
spection  of  the  bishops  of  London  by  some  Order  in  Council, 
from  whence  this  instruction  might  take  its  rise. 

Considering  therefore  that  the  Lord  Bishop  of  London's 
ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  in  America  depends  entirely  upon 
Your  Majesty's  pleasure,  that  his  Lordship's  present  commis 
sary  in  Barbadoes  is  reported  to  be  a  very  indiscreet  person 
and  that  Your  Majesty's  good  subjects  in  the  said  island  are 
extremely  uneasy  under  his  authority,  we  would  humbly  sub 
mit  to  Your  Majesty's  great  wisdom,  whether  it  may  not  be 
proper  my  Lord  Bishop  should  be  directed  to  supersede  the 
said  Gordon,  and  for  the  present  to  employ  his  care  and  in 
spection  more  immediately  upon  the  clergy  there;  since  the 
lives  and  conversation  of  the  laity  will  in  all  humane  proba 
bility  much  sooner  be  reformed  by  the  pious  examples  of  their 
spiritual  pastors  than  by  any  ecclesiastical  censure,  or  coercion 
from  the  secular  arm.276 

This  seems  a  fair  illustration  of  the  policy  of  the 
Board.  It  was  willing  to  take  every  reasonable  pre 
caution  in  checking  legislation  which  encroached  up 
on  the  rights  of  the  clergy  or  upon  the  bishop's  right 
ful  authority,  but  it  did  not  readily  lend  itself  to  any 

276  Board  of  Trade  Commercial  Series  /,  23,  pp.  319-328. 


RELATIONS  TO  OTHER  DEPARTMENTS      127 

schemes  for  pernicious  and  irritating  ecclesiastical 
activity  in  America. 

Parliament 

The  relations  of  the  Board  to  Parliament  were 
more  intimate  than  has  generally  been  supposed.  The 
members  occupied  seats  either  in  the  House  of  Lords 
or  in  the  House  of  Commons.  Whenever  questions 
of  special  interest  to  the  plantations  were  under  con 
sideration,  the  members  of  the  Board  in  each  house 
were  most  frequently  charged  with  the  duties  con 
nected  with  such  consideration,  whatever  they  hap 
pened  to  be.  The  Board  prepared  all  bills  which 
affected  the  colonies  alone,  and  sometimes  it  asked  for 
and  received  permission  to  offer  bills  embodying  its 
favorite  policies.  Such,  for  example,  were  the  vari 
ous  bills  for  resuming  to  the  crown  the  powers  of 
government  in  the  charter  and  proprietary  colonies, 
which  were  almost  constantly  before  Parliament  dur 
ing  the  years  i^oo-ijoG.2"  Other  favorite  measures 
of  the  Board  were  the  bills  for  establishing  a  fixed 
civil  list  in  New  York,278  those  for  protecting  such 
white  pine  trees  as  were  suitable  for  masts  for  the 

277  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  vol.  i,  538-539;  Commons  Journal, 
vol.  xv,  151,  1 68,  183.     Sometimes  this  was  varied  somewhat  by  the  secre 
tary  of  state  sending  a  bill  to  the  Board  with  a  request  to  examine  it  and 
to  make  any  alterations  it  saw  fit.     See  the  letter  of  Secretary  Hedges  to 
the  Board,  February  18,  1706,  in  C.O.  5,  1263,  O,  30. 

278  One  of  these  bills  was  drafted  by  the  Board  in  accordance  with  an 
Order  in  Council  of  March  i,  1711.     It  was  then  sent  to  the  attorney-  and 
solicitor-general  for  their  examination  before  it  was  offered  in  Parliament. 
Another  was  drafted  two  years  later  and  Sir  John  Hynd  Cotton,  one  of  the 
members  of  the  Board,  was  ordered  to  present  it  to  the  House  of  Commons. 
See:  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  22,  p.  257;  23,  p.  349;  New  York  Colonial 
Documents,  vol.  v,  389  and  passim. 


128        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

royal  navy,  bills  to  encourage  the  production  of  naval 
stores  in  America,279  and  the  bills  against  legal  tender 
acts  in  the  colonies. 

/  The  Privy  Council  and  both  houses  of  Parliament 
frequently  called  upon  the  Board  to  draft  bills  for 
special  purposes.  The  request  of  1708  for  a  draft  of 
a  bill  to  enforce  the  proclamation  regulating  the  value 
of  foreign  coins  in  the  plantations,280  and  that  for  a 
bill  for  punishing  murders  committed  in  the  admi 
ralty  jurisdiction  of  the  plantations  are  good  illustra 
tions.  Besides  these  bills  that  were  officially  drafted 
by  the  Board,  numerous  others  were  practically  so 
drawn.  The  House  of  Commons  would  direct  that 
certain  men,  of  whom  the  most  important  were  mem 
bers  of  the  Board,  should  prepare  and  bring  in  bills; 
and  when  these  were  afterwards  reported  to  the  house, 
they  were  presented  by  one  of  the  members  of  the 
Board.  To  all  intents  and  purposes  such  bills  were 
drawn  by  the  Board  and  may  have  been  actually  pre 
pared  in  its  offices.  The  names  of  Molesworth, 
Blathwayt,  Chetwind,  Docminique,  Bladen,  Dupplin, 

279  See  the  letter  of  Secretary  Hedges,  December  18,  1704  [C.O.  324,  9, 
p.  45],  notifying  the  Board  that  the  House  of  Commons  had  given  leave  for 
the  introduction  of  such  a  bill  and  requesting  that  it  be  prepared  and  sent 
to  him  for  presentation  to  the  House.     The  Board  was  empowered  to  include 
in  the  bill  whatever  it  saw  fit.     Another  similar  measure  sought  to  encourage 
the  colonial  production  of  raw  iron.     January  26,  1711,  Dartmouth  gave  the 
Board  permission  to  prepare  a  clause  for  insertion  in  some  bill  which  would 
prevent  the  payment  of  drawbacks  on  foreign  iron,  re-exported  to  the  colo 
nies  [Ibid.,  p.  450].  The  clause  was  drawn  and  Sir  Charles  Turner,  a  mem 
ber  of  the  Board,  was  directed  "to  follow  it  in  the  House  of  Commons."  See: 
Board  of  Trade  Journal,  22,  p.  220;  also  the  recommendations  of  the  Board 
to  the  House  of  Lords  for  removing  the  duty  on  colonial  pig  iron  and  for  per 
mitting  the  sale  of  colonial  rice  to  southern  Europe,  January  14,  1735,  C.O. 
324,  12,  p.  117. 

280  Chalmers,  Geo.  Introduction  to  the  Revolt,  vol.  i,  320-321. 


RELATIONS  TO  OTHER  DEPARTMENTS       129 

Fane,  Grenville,  Pitt,  Bacon,  and  Oswald  constantly 
appear  in  the  lists  of  the  committees  on  bills  affecting 
the  colonies.281 

In  addition  to  preparing  legislation  for  the  consid 
eration  of  Parliament,  the  Board  was  the  source  of 
information  upon  all  questions  of  trade  or  colonial 
affairs.  In  the  House  of  Commons  addresses  were 
constantly  being  presented  which  called  for  reports 
on  such  questions  as  the  following:  the  production  of 
naval  stores,  indigo,  silk,  rice,  and  other  staples;  com 
mercial  questions,  such  as  piracy,  violations  of  the 
trade  laws,  and  the  increase  in  bills  of  credit;  and 
such  questions  as  the  administration  of  justice,  rela 
tions  with  the  Indians,  and  the  condition  of  the  colo 
nial  defenses.  The  reports  in  answer  to  these  ad 
dresses  were  usually  prepared  by  the  Board  and  pre 
sented  to  the  two  houses  by  prominent  Lords  of 
Trade,  and  the  names  which  occur  so  frequently  in 
the  lists  of  committees  are  met  with  again  in  this  con 
nection.282  At  other  times  some  of  the  members  of  the 
Board  were  summoned  before  one  or  the  other  of  the 
houses  of  Parliament  to  give  information  283  on  some 

281  See  the  Commons  Journal  for  the  period,  especially  vol.  xv,  157,  vol. 
xxiv,  658,  vol.  xxv,  746. 

282  Commons  Journal,  vol.  xiii,  502,  vol.  xv,  436,  vol.  xvii,  224,  vol.  xviii, 
698,  vol.  xix,  352,  vol.  xxiii,  609,  vol.  xxv,  568,  vols.   xxvi-xxx,  passim. 

283  The  Board  of  Trade  Journal  has  many  entries  like  the  following: 
"Another  order  of  the  House  of  Lords,  dated  yesterday,  requiring  some  of 
the  commissioners  of  trade   and   plantations  with  their  secretary  to  attend 
that  house  tomorrow  at  12  o'clock,  was  read." —  Journal,  24,  p.  262.     The 
secretary  of  the  Board  was  also  frequently  called  upon  to  attend  committee 
meetings  of  the  houses  with  such  books  and  papers  as  bore  upon  the  matter 
under  consideration.     This  was  done  when  the  bill  to  regulate  the  charter 
and  proprietary  colonies  was  under  consideration.     See:  August  17-18,  1715, 
C.O.  5,  1292,  pp.  464-465- 


130        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

measure.  Nothing  shows  the  really  ministerial 
character  of  the  Board  more  than  the  fact  that  its 
members  were  evidently  accustomed  to  speak  for  it 
in  the  House  of  Commons.^ 

The  ministerial  character!)!  the  Board  is  still  more 
apparent  after  the  settlement  of  Nova  Scotia,  the  sur 
render  of  Georgia  to  the  crown,  and  the  acquisition 
of  Florida.  In  all  of  these  colonies  the  charges  of 
government  were  paid  by  the  crown  from  annual 
grants  made  by  Parliament,  and  the  control  of  these 
expenditures  was  vested  in  the  Board.  When  esti 
mates  for  the  coming  year  were  laid  before  the  House 
of  Commons,  those  for  these  three  colonies  did  not 
come  from  the  chancellor  of  the  exchequer  but  from 
the  Board  of  Trade.  They  were  presented  by  one  of 
its  members  as  the  representative  of  the  Board,285  and 
if  they  should  be  attacked,  he  and  his  colleagues  had 
to  defend  them. 

n  • 

In  view  of  the  close  relations  between  the  Board  of 
Trade  and  Parliament,  the  reasons  advanced  for  its 
establishment  by  Order  in  Council  appear  insignifi 
cant.  Created  originally  in  such  a  way  as  to  prevent 
its  control  falling  into  the  hands  of  the  House  of 
Commons,  it  had  come  to  be  chosen  almost  exclusive 
ly  from  that  house.  Its  authority  depended  upon  the 
influence  it  could  muster  in  the  Commons,  it  was  con 
stantly  called  upon  to  furnish  information  to  that 
body,  and  in  its  representation  of  estimates  for  cer- 

284  See  Commons  Journal. 

285 — Ibid.,  vol.  xxvi,  629,  935,  vol.  xxvii,  363,  653,  vol.  xxviii,  103,  396, 
693,  1019,  vol.  xxix,  99,  468,  877.  The  names  of  Oswald,  Hamilton,  Bacon, 
and  Jenyns,  all  of  whom  were  members  of  the  Board,  are  constantly  con 
nected  with  these  estimates. 


RELATIONS  TO  OTHER  DEPARTMENTS       131 

tain  colonial  expenditures,  it  might  have  subjected 
the  entire  ministry  to  an  attack  by  the  opposition.  It 
is  thus  seen  that  the  very  thing  had  happened  which 
William  III  feared,  namely,  the  control  of  this  Board 
by  Parliament  instead  of  by  the  sovereign. 


III.  DIFFICULTIES  OF  COLONIAL 
ADMINISTRATION 

Communications 

One  of  the  serious  difficulties  of  colonial  adminis 
tration  was  the  lack  of  communication  between  Eng 
land  and  the  plantations.  There  was  no  regular  mail 
service  of  any  kind  until  I755,286  and  all  letters  and 
other  communications  were  entrusted  to  the  ordinary 
merchant  vessels.  This  method  furnished  reasonably 
prompt  service  between  Boston,  New  York,  Vir 
ginia  287  (and  later  Charleston),  and  the  home  coun 
try;  but  other  colonies  were  not  so  fortunate,  for  they 
had  to  depend  upon  more  precarious  means  for  send 
ing  letters.  Connecticut  and  North  Carolina  were 
probably  the  worst  situated  in  this  respect,  for  very 
few  ocean-going  vessels  touched  at  the  coast  of  either, 
and  what  ships  did  enter  their  ports  were  usually 
small  coasting  vessels,  which  were  worthless  for  pur 
poses  of  communication.  The  records  show  that  the 
governor  of  Connecticut  received  his  letters  by  way 
of  Boston  and  sent  them  by  the  same  route.288  In 
North  Carolina  some  of  the  governor's  letters  could 

286  See  the  letter  of  the  Board  of  Trade  to  Secretary  Robinson,  September 
18,  1755,  in  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  viii,  part  ii,  138. 

257  Letters  from  Virginia  and  Maryland  reached  the  Board  in  from  two 
to  three  months  in  1700.  See:  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  13. 

288  Talcott  Papers,  in  Connecticut  Historical  Society  Collections,  vols.  iv, 
v,  passim. 


134        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

have  been  sent  directly  to  England  and  some  reached 
him  by  that  route,  but  many  more  of  them  had  to  go 
by  way  of  Virginia,289  and  letters  for  the  latter  colony 
frequently  went  by  way  of  New  York.290  Even  the 
colonies  which  had  direct  communications  with  Eng 
land  were  not  so  much  better  situated,  so  far  as  the 
governor's  correspondence  was  concerned.  Trading 
vessels  seldom  made  ports  at  regular  intervals.  They 
came  in  unannounced  and  sailed  again  as  soon  as  car 
goes  could  be  discharged  and  new  ones  taken  on ;  con 
sequently  the  governors  often  had  to  prepare  their 
dispatches  in  haste  while  ships  were  in  port,  and  such 
is  frequently  stated  to  be  the  case  in  their  letters.291 

The  ports  having  the  best  means  of  communication 
could  not  expect  vessels  to  enter  at  all  times  of  year. 
Apparently  Boston  had  almost  no  transoceanic  com 
merce  in  the  winter  months.  Governor  Talcott's  let 
ters  to  the  Board  of  Trade  were  frequently  written  in 
the  late  fall  months,  but  usually  they  were  not  deliv 
ered  to  that  body  until  the  latter  part  of  April  or  the 
first  of  May.  In  preparing  reports  for  the  houses  of 
Parliament,  the  Board  was  frequently  disappointed 
by  receiving  the  information  too  late  to  be  of  use  that 
year.  It  was  thus  practically  impossible  for  the 
Board  to  furnish  Parliament  with  information  from 
Connecticut,  even  though  it  had  been  instructed  to 

289  Letters  frequently  took  even  a  more  circuitous  route.  See  the  North 
Carolina  Colonial  Records,  vol.  ii,  185,  vol.  v,  586,  and  passim',  also  vols. 
iii,  iv,  passim. 

200  This  was  true  of  a  number  of  letters  of  the  Board  written  in  1712  and 
1713.  See:  Spotswood  to  the  Board,  December  29,  1713,  C.O.  5,  1364. 

291  See  the  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iv,  passim;  vol.  v,  241 
and  passim.  Letters  from  or  to  New  York  frequently  went  by  way  of  Bos 
ton.  See:  Bellomont's  letters,  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  passim. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ADMINISTRATION         135 

secure  it  before  the  adjournment  of  the  previous  ses 
sion  ;  consequently  reports  from  that  colony  were  reg 
ularly  about  a  year  behind  what  they  should  have 
been.292 

The  most  striking  example  of  bad  communications, 
however,  is  furnished  by  North  Carolina.  In  June, 
1745,  the  Board  wrote  Governor  Johnson  that  it  had 
received  no  letter  from  him  for  three  years,  that  it 
had  complained  of  his  negligence  in  its  letter  of  the 
previous  year,  and  that  it  had  great  reason  to  renew  its 
complaint  on  that  head.293  Johnson  answered  a  year 
later  that  he  had  been  a  regular  correspondent  and 
that  he  was  very  much  surprised  at  the  complaint  of 
the  Board,  which  apparently  had  just  reached  him.294 
The  case  was  so  serious  that  the  Board  informed  New 
castle  in  1746  that  it  had  received  no  letters  from  the 
governor  since  April,  I742.295  The  discrepancy  be 
tween  the  existing  correspondence  and  Johnson's 
statements  could  easily  be  explained  by  assuming 
that  his  letters  were  lost,  or  possibly  by  assuming 
that  he  never  wrote  and  that  he  simply  lied  when  he 
insisted  that  he  had.  That  the  former  may  have 
been  true  is  evident  from  his  letter  of  January  20, 

292  See  the  letter  of  the  Board  of  Trade  to  Talcott,  October  22,  1736. 
The  latter's  letter  of  October  28,  1735,  in  answer  to  a  request  for  information, 
had  net  reached  the  Board  until  April  12,  too  late  to  be  of  any  value  in 
making  the  report  to  Parliament     See:  Talcott  Papers,  in  Connecticut  His 
torical  Society  Collections,  vol.  iv,  378 ;  also  vol.  v,  passim,  for  other  illus 
trations. 

293  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  vol.  iv,  756. 

294  "It  is  with  very  great  surprize  and  concern  that  I  read  in  your  Lord 
ship's  [letter]  of  the  27th  of  June  last,  which  I  have  received  but  lately."  — 
Letter  of  Johnson  to  the  Board,   June  6,   1746.     North   Carolina   Colonial 
Records,  vol.  iv,  792. 

295  This  letter  was  written  in  December,  1741,  and  was  the  last  received 
until  the  one  of  June,  1746.     See:  Ibid.,  797,  844. 


136        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

1747,  in  which  he  stated  that  the  Board  of  Trade's 
letter  of  July  19,  1744,  had  just  reached  him  and  that 
he  had  been  a  regular  correspondent  since  1741.  Two 
years  and  a  half  for  a  letter  to  cross  the  ocean  was 
certainly  not  very  rapid  transit. 

The  last  illustration  was,  of  course,  exceptional,298 
but  it  is  enough  to  condemn  conditions  which  made 
such  an  occurrence  possible.  Letters,  packets,  and 
other  communications  were  entrusted  to  the  master 
of  any  convenient  sailing  vessel,  who  might  be  bound 
to  another  port  and  have  to  transfer  them  to  some 
other  master  who  could  deliver  them  in  England. 
After  reaching  there,  it  was  by  no  means  certain  that 
they  would  be  delivered  promptly  to  the  Board,  as 
packages  of  papers  addressed  to  it  were  sometimes 
allowed  to  lie  in  the  customs  house  for  a  year  or  more 
before  they  were  delivered.297  In  a  letter  of  May  17, 

1748,  Johnson  makes  the  following  statement  concern 
ing  some  legislative  records  he  had  sent  over: 

I  am  informed  these  pacquets  got  safe  home  in  the  month  of 
May  1747.  And  yet  I  am  now  told  by  a  gentleman  lately 
arrived  from  London  that  they  were  never  sent  to  your  Lord 
ship  but  lay  at  Mr.  Samuel  Wragg's  house  last  Christmas.298 

296  The  communication  with  Boston  was  almost  as  bad,  at  times,  as  with 
the  southern  colonies.     June   18,   1748,  the  Board  wrote  Governor  Shirley 
that  it  had  received  his  letters  dated  December  i,  1747,  and  January  6,  1748, 
and  no  others  since  his  letter  of  November  16,  1745,  although  Shirley  says 
he  wrote  five  letters  in  addition  to  the  two  which  were  received.     See :  C.O. 
5,  918,  p.  210. 

297  February  20,  1728,  the  Board  sent  a  messenger  to  the  customs  office 
to  get  a  package  of  papers  which  had  been  lying  in  the  customs  warehouse 
since  January  17,  1727.     At  the  same  time  the  Board  requested  that  any 
future  packages  of  that  kind  should  be  delivered,  or  that  notice  of  their 
receipt  should  be  given.     Evidently  this  was  not  always  done,  for  similar 
requests  are  found  in  after  years.     See:  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  39,  p.  62; 
45,  p.  176. 

298  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  vol.  iv,  868. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ADMINISTRATION         137 

Possibly  his  letters  suffered  a  similar  fate,299  for  dis 
patches  to  the  governors  sometimes  had  to  undergo 
just  as  strange  adventures.  It  is  evident  that  those 
addressed  to  the  governors  of  North  Carolina  were 
frequently  passed  on  from  hand  to  hand  across  Vir 
ginia  and  Carolina  until  they  reached  the  governor. 
Occasionally  a  special  messenger  was  employed,  but 
only  in  cases  of  unusual  urgency,  and  even  in  those 
cases  the  governors  had  to  bear  the  charges.300 
/.-Postal  conditions  in  England  also  contributed  to 
the  rather  haphazard  method  of  handling  mail  ad 
dressed  to  the  Board.  None  of  its  communications 
were  permitted  a  free  passage  through  the  mails  until 
I746.301  Before  that  time  the  postage  had  to  be  paid 
by  the  Board,  both  on  its  own  letters  and  those  ad 
dressed  to  it.  As  this  charge  had  to  be  defrayed  out 
of  the  incidental  fund  of  the  office,  the  Board  en 
deavored  to  economize  by  having  the  large  packages 
of  papers  delivered  to  it  through  other  channels  than 
the  post-office.30V' 

299  It  is  evident  from  the  letter  of  Governor  Everard  to  Carteret  in  1729 
that  such  things  did  happen.     One  Mr.  Durley  had  been  entrusted  with  many 
letters,  public  papers,  and  similar  packets  to  deliver  to  Carteret,  but  he  was 
"lately  informed  by  some  gentlemen  here  that  he  either  gave  the  said  writ 
ings  to  Lovicks  Brother   in  London  or  destroyed  them."  —  North  Carolina 
Colonial  Records,  vol.  iii,  27. 

300  See  the  correspondence  between  the   governors  of  Virginia   and  of 
North  Carolina,  in  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  vols.  iv,  v,  passim. 

301  August  19,  1746,  an  Order  in  Council  directed  the  postmaster-general 
to  pass  through  the  mail,  free  of  charge,  all  letters  and  packages  addressed 
to  the  Board  of  Trade.     Prior  to  that  time  the   records  of  the  plantation 
office  show  numerous  expenditures  for  postage.     The  Board  of  Trade  had 
asked  for  free  postage,  but  it  was  informed  that  all  the  revenues  of  the  post- 
office  were  appropriated,  and  that  it  should  pay  its  own  postage.     Postage 
from  April,  1699,  to  September,  1700,  amounted  to  £63  is.     See:  Board  of 
Trade  Journal,  13,  p.  244;   54,  p.   85;  Order  in  Council  of  July  6,  1697, 
Board  of  Trade  Miscellanies,  n,  pp.  40-41. 

302  September  5,  1739,  the  Board  informed  Governor  Gooch  that  the  last 


138        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

The  slowness  of  the  service  was  not  its  worst  fault 
from  an  administrative  point  of  view.  Letters  which 
were  passed  from  person  to  person,  and  entrusted  to 
parties  who  were  not  responsible  and  who  were  prob 
ably  curious,  enjoyed  no  protection  against  being 
opened  before  they  were  delivered.  Under  such  cir 
cumstances  it  was  difficult  to  secure  that  secrecy  which 
is  often  necessary  in  directing  the  policy  of  a  governor 
in  difficult  situations.  The  following  extract  from 
one  of  Governor  Talcott's  letters  illustrates  a  not  un 
common  occurrence:  The  packet  from  London, 

Together  with  a  duplicate  from  our  agent,  of  his  of  Feb. 
1 2th,  came  to  Boston,  so  along  to  Fairfield,  then  back  to  me; 
both  of  which  I  have  great  cause  to  suspect,  had  been  opened 
and  closed  again,  before  they  came  to  my  hand,  and  I  doubt  by 
our  adversaries,  but  can't  learn  by  whom.303 

Under  such  conditions  it  was  possible  for  the  plans 
of  the  Board  to  be  nullified  by  being  known  in  ad 
vance  by  the  opposition. 

The  existence  of  war  during  more  than  a  third  of 
the  period  from  1696  to  1765  greatly  increased  the 
danger  of  dispatches  being  lost.  Duplicates,  tripli 
cates,  and  even  five  copies  of  letters  were  sent  by  the 

box  of  papers  from  him  had  been  sent  by  post  from  one  of  the  out  ports  and 
the  charges  amounted  to  £11  i6s.  id.  As  such  charges  fell  heavily  upon 
the  incidental  fund,  he  was  directed  to  have  the  masters  of  vessels  not  to 
deliver  such  packages,  in  future,  until  they  reached  the  Thames;  then  they 
were  to  be  turned  over  to  some  individual  to  deliver  to  the  Board.  In  that 
way  only  a  messenger  fee  was  paid.  See:  C.O.  5,  1366,  p.  325. 

303  Letter  to  Governor  Belcher  of  Massachusetts,  July  6,  1731,  in  Talcott 
Papers,  Connecticut  Historical  Society  Collections,  vol.  iv,  238.  Similar 
statements  are  met  with  in  the  New  York  and  the  North  Carolina  Corres- 
pendence.  Letters  opened  by  mistake  are  also  not  infrequently  mentioned. 
March  i,  1705,  Governor  Nicholson  of  Virginia  informed  the  Board  that  he 
had  reason  to  think  that  some  of  his  letters  had  been  intercepted.  See: 
C.O.  5,  1361,  p.  239. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ADMINISTRATION         139 

governors,304  and  usually  the  Board  resorted  to  the 
same  precaution.305  As  these  different  copies  were 
sent  by  different  routes,  one  of  them  ordinarily  got 
through  safely,  although  frequently  all  were  lost.  As 
the  letters  and  papers  from  America  often  contained 
information  of  great  value  to  the  enemy,  the  govern 
ors  were  given  strict  orders  to  direct  the  captains  of 
all  vessels  carrying  dispatches  to  sink  them  if  there 
was  danger  of  their  capture.306  Probably  this  accounts 
for  the  great  number  of  papers  lost  during  the  war, 
although  many  were  captured.  The  danger  of  loss 
was  not  only  increased,  but  since  fewer  ships  ventured 
out,  the  opportunity  for  sending  letters  was  greatly 
diminished  during  the  periods  of  hostility.  Thus 
communications  were  seriously  crippled  at  the  very 

304  The  letters  of  Governor  Ellis  of  Georgia  to  the  Board,  dated  March 
ii  and  20,  1757,  were  not  received,  except  a  fifth  copy  which  finally  arrived 
by  way  of  New  York.     Board  to  Ellis,  April  21,  1758.     C.O.  5,  673,  p.  4. 
See  also  the  letters  of  the  governors  to  the  Board  of  Trade  in  the  New 
York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iv,  passim. 

305  November  24,  1758,  the  Board,  in  answering  letters  of  Governor  Ellis, 
said  that  it  was  much  concerned  that  its  letter  of  April  21  had  not  reached 
him,   as  it  contained  much  information  as  to  conditions  in  Georgia.     Two 
copies  of  this  letter  had  been  sent,  one  by  a  direct  conveyance  and  the  other 
by  the  New  York  packet,  a  third  was  included  in  this  letter.     See:  C.O.  5, 
673,  p.  182;  also  the  letters  of  the  Board  of  Trade  to  the  governors,  in  the 
New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iv,  passim. 

306  "The  directions  given  you  relating  to  the  sinking  of  letters,  are  the 
same  as  were  sent  to  the  governors  of  all  his  Majesty's  other  plantations, 
and  was  done  in  order  to  prevent  the  enemies  getting  intelligence  of  the 
state  of  the  plantations  by  letters  taken  on  board  of   ships  coming  from 
thence. 

"We  understand  the  assembly  are  of  another  opinion,  but  we  continue 
nevertheless  to  enjoin  you  to  direct  that  all  your  letters,  and  such  as  in  any 
manner  relate  to  her  Majesty's  service,  be  thrown  overboard  in  such  case  of 
imminent  danger,  and  you  nevertheless  recommend  to  the  people,  the  causing 
their  letters  to  be  thrown  overboard  as  aforesaid,  as  being  for  the  benefit 
and  safety  of  the  colony  and  the  trade  thereof."  —  Board  of  Trade  to  Gov- ' 
ernor  Nott  of  Virginia,  February  4,  1706,  C.O.  5,  1361,  p.  438. 


140        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

time  the  governors  needed  the  most  encouragement 
and  support  from  the  home  authorities  to  prevent  the 
assemblies  from  assuming  full  control  of  all  branches 
of  the  government. 

^xThe  Board  of  Trade  was  not  indifferent  to  the  lack 
of  proper  facilities  for  transmitting  dispatches,  and 
looked  with  favor  upon  the  proposal  of  1703  to  estab 
lish  regular  packet  boats  to  ply  between  New  York 
and  the  Isle  of  Wight.  As  the  owners  of  the  vessels 
wished  unlimited  privileges  of  carrying  freight,  how 
ever,  the  scheme  was  abandoned,307  and  there  was  no 
improvement  in  methods  of  communication  until  the 
presidency  of  Halifax.  As  the  quarrel  with  the 
French  in  America  developed  into  open  war,  the 
Board  308  realized  the  necessity  for  better  postal  ser 
vice.  September  18,  1755,  it  made  a  representation 
to  the  king  in  which  the  conditions  of  the  existing 
systems  were  described. 

The  great  delays,  miscarriages  and  other  accidents,  which 
have  always,  but  more  especially  of  late,  attended  the  corres 
pondence  between  this  kingdom  and  Your  Majesty's  colonies 
and  plantations  in  America  from  the  very  precarious  and  un 
certain  method,  in  which  it  is  usually  carried  on  by  merchant 
ships,  have  been  attended  with  great  inconvenience  and  preju 
dice  to  Your  Majesty's  service  and  to  the  trade  and  commerce 
of  Your  Majesty's  subjects.309 

As  a  remedy,  it  was  proposed  to  establish  regular 
packet  boats  to  ply  between  Falmouth  and  New  York 

307  Letters  of  the  Board  of  Trade  to  the  Earl  of  Nottingham  in  regard  to 
the  proposals  of  Sir  J.  Jeffrys,  in  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iv, 
1030,  1031. 

sos  During  the  period  from  1748  to  1761  Halifax  was  the  Board  of  Trade, 
and  practically  all  questions  of  policy  put  forward  by  that  body  were  his 
personal  ideas. 

309  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  63  ;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  viii,  part  ii,  138. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ADMINISTRATION         141 

or  some  other  important  colonial  port.  The  recom 
mendation  was  acted  upon,  and  October  25,  follow 
ing,  the  postmaster-general  informed  the  Board  that 
he  had  put  on  boats  to  make  monthly  voyages  to  both 
the  West  Indies  and  New  York,  "with  which  it  shall 
be  our  endeavor  that  nothing  except  unavoidable  ac 
cidents  shall  interfere,  and  Your  Lordships  shall  con 
stantly  have  the  earliest  notice  of  every  intended  dis 
patch."  As  this  was  the  first  step  that  had  been  taken 
"in  the  establishment  of  a  regular  correspondence 
with  the  main  of  His  Majesty's  American  dominions," 
the  boats  were  to  be  allowed  to  stay  at  New  York  for 
twenty  days  on  the  first  trip  and  could  be  held  for  a 
short  time  while  dispatches  were  being  prepared.310 
The  ships  were  of  two  hundred  tons  and  fitted  for 
war.311  By  this  measure  correspondence  with  Amer 
ica  was  rendered  much  more  certain  and  regular; 
and  the  Board  had  scored  at  least  one  important  ad 
ministrative  triumph.  The  governors  were  prompt 
ly  informed  of  the  establishment  of  the  new  service 
and  instructed  to  transmit  reports  and  dispatches  ev 
ery  month.312  From  this  time  on  the  whole  colonial  cor 
respondence  shows  that  the  Board  had  the  details  of 
colonial  administration  much  more  completely  at  its 
command  than  at  any  time  before. 

Lack  of  responsibility 

The  commission  which  created  the  Board  of  Trade 
gave  it  the  power  to  nominate  but  no  power  to  ap- 

310  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  p.   144.     Cf.  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  63, 
October  29,   1755. 

311  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  viii,  part  ii,  145. 

312  Circular  letter  signed  by  John  Pownall  and  dated  November  4,  1755, 
in  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  viii,  part  ii,  146. 


I42        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

point  colonial  officers.313  This  was  one  of  the  funda 
mental  weaknesses  of  the  Board  as  an  administrative 
body,  as  officials  readily  obey  only  when  they  know 
they  must.  The  Board  was  not  the  agency  through 
which  most  of  the  governors  and  other  officials  se 
cured  their  positions,  nor  was  it  able  to  secure  their 
removal  for  failure  to  obey  its  orders.  Quite  fre 
quently  both  governor  and  Board  were  appointed  by 
the  same  influence.  Governors  knew  this  and  at  times 
presumed  to  treat  the  Board  with  indifference.  The 
plan  of  placing  administrative  affairs  in  the  hands  of 
the  Board  and  expecting  that  body  to  carry  out  an 
effective  policy  through  officials  who  were  not  re 
sponsible  to  it  could  not  have  been  expected  to  work 
successfully,  as  there  was  too  much  division  of  re 
sponsibility  at  a  time  when  effective  administration 
was  most  essential. 

The  colonial  patronage  belonged  to  and  was  exer 
cised  by  the  secretary  of  state  for  the  Southern  De 
partment,  who  appointed  the  governors  and  other 
chief  officers.  If  the  members  of  the  Board  were  con 
sulted  before  such  appointments  were  made,  there  is 
little  evidence  to  show  that  such  was  the  custom. 
Frequently  their  protests  against  an  appointment 
which  seemed  especially  ill  advised  were  useless. 

The  remonstrance  of  the  Board  in  1714  against  the 
appointment  of  Vaughn  as  lieutenant-governor  of 
New  Hampshire  has  already  been  cited.  When  his 
successor,  Wentworth,  was  appointed  the  Board  filed 
a  similar  objection,  on  the  ground  that  ft  was  not  for 
the  best  interest  of  Britain  to  appoint  men  of  the  coun- 

313  See  the  commission  in  the  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iv, 
145-147.  w 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ADMINISTRATION         143 

try  to  hold  such  important  positions.314  Neither  of 
these  protests,  however,  was  effective.  Each  secre 
tary  of  state  retained  full  control  over  the  selection  of 
governors  and  lieutenant-governors,  and  the  Board 
was  communicated  with  only  after  the  appointments 
were  made.315  The  records,  down  to  1752,  show  the 
brief  official  notice  of  such  appointments,  with  an  oc 
casional  period  when  even  this  notice  was  not  sent 
until  the  information  was  asked  for  by  the  Board.316 
The  only  successful  interposition  of  the  latter  in  the 
selection  of  a  lieutenant-governor  appears  to  have 
been  in  1731,  when  there  was  a  vacancy  in  New 
Hampshire  caused  by  the  death  of  Lieutenant-gov 
ernor  Wentworth.  The  Board  recommended  Dun- 
bar,  who  was  then  surveyor  of  the  woods,  and  urged 
his  appointment  on  the  ground  that  it  would  greatly 
strengthen  his  authority  as  a  protector  of  the  forests; 
and  added  that,  as  there  was  no  salary  nor  other  per 
quisites  attached  to  the  office  in  question,  Newcastle 
would  probably  have  few  applicants  for  it.  After 
some  hesitation  on  the  part  of  Newcastle,  the  nomi- 

314  Chalmers,  Geo.  Introduction  to  the  Revolt,  vol.  ii,  34. 

315  See  the  notice  of  the  appointment  of  Robert  Dudley  as  governor  of 
Massachusetts  Bay,  in  C.O.  5,  911,  p.  424.     The  note  from  Craggs,  April  19, 
1720,  notifying  the  Board  that  Burnet  had  been  selected  for  the  governor 
ship  of  New  York  is  in  the  same  form.     All  of  these  notices  were  essentially 
like   the  following:     "His   Majesty  having  been  pleased  to   appoint  John 
Montgomery,  Esq.,  to  be  Governor  of  New  York  and  New  Jersey  in  the 
room  of  William  Burnet,  Esq.,  it  is  His  Majesty's  pleasure  that  the  draughts 
of  his  commission  and  instructions  may  be  prepared  in  order  to  be  laid  before 
His  Majesty,  for  his  approbation."  —  Townshend  to  the  Board,  April   12, 
1727.     See  also:  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  v,  536,  823. 

316  April  14,  1715,  the  Board  asked  Stanhope  for  a  list  of  the  governors 
and  lieutenant-governors  that  had  been  appointed,  in  order  that  it  might 
know  with  whom  to  correspond.     This  was  answered,  May  2,  and  a  list  of 
nine   such    appointments  enclosed.     C.O.    324,    10,    pp.    60-69.     Similar   re 
quests  were  addressed  to  Newcastle  from  time  to  time. 


144        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

nation  was  confirmed.317  With  this  exception,  that  poli 
tician  kept  the  control  of  the  patronage  in  his  own 
hands  and  seldom  consulted  the  Board  when  appoint 
ments  were  to  be  made. 

Office  seekers  naturally  ignored  the  Board  and  ap 
plied  directly  to  Newcastle,  as  is  seen  in  the  attempts 
of  William  Keith  to  secure  the  governorship  of  New 
Jersey.818  Merit  and  proper  qualifications  were  not 
always  carefully  looked  after  by  Newcastle,  and  some 
of  his  officers  were  far  from  efficient.  Two  of  these 
were  commented  upon  by  Governor  Burrington  of 
North  Carolina,  in  a  letter  to  Newcastle  in  1732,  as 
follows : 

The  chief  justice  and  attorney  general  of  this  province 
ought  to  be  men  of  understanding  and  lawyers;  neither  of  the 
persons  your  Grace  bestow'd  these  places  upon  in  this  govern 
ment  ever  knew  law  enough  to  be  clarke  to  a  justice  of  the 
peace.319 

In  the  same  letter  there  is  an  intimation  that  Mar 
tin  Bladen,  who  was  so  long  an  energetic  member  of 
the  Board,  had  a  certain  amount  of  influence  over 
colonial  appointments  and  that  he  was  opposed  to 
Burrington.320  Governor  Belcher  of  Massachusetts 

317  Governor  Belcher  had  tried  to  prevent  the  appointment  of  Dunbar, 
and  Newcastle  asked  the  Board  to  consider  the  charges  he  had  made  against 
him.     In  spite  of  these,  the  Board   again  recommended  the  latter  for  the 
office  and  finally  secured  his  appointment.     See  Letter  of  the  Board  to  New 
castle,  February  10,  1731,  in  C.O.  5,  916,  pp.  400,  403,  420. 

318  New  Jersey  Archives^  vol.  v,  446-447  and  note, 

319  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  vol.  iii,  438.     Burrington  was  him 
self  one  of  Newcastle's  appointees  and  apparently  was  little  more  competent 
than  the  men  he  condemns.     Some  allowance  must  be  made  for  Burrington's 
choleric  disposition,  in  accepting  his  opinion  of  the  qualifications  of  the  two 
officers. 

320  "Your  Grace  I  hope  has  not  forgot,  that  I  made  bold  to  mention  a 
suspicion   I    had   of   Col.   Bladens   ill   intentions  to   me,    nor   the   generous 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ADMINISTRATION         145 

makes  similar  statements  as  to  Bladen's  hostility  to 
himself.321  Lieutenant-governor  Dunbar  of  New 
Hampshire  apparently  owed  his  appointment  to  Mar 
tin  Bladen's  influence,  and  Belcher  seems  to  think 
that  all  his  efforts  to  displace  him  failed  because  of 
Bladen's  opposition.322  These  incidents  show  that 
some  members  of  the  Board  had  at  least  sufficient 
power  to  make  themselves  feared.  Probably  it  was 
the  power  of  the  Board  to  present  and  encourage  com 
plaints,  which  caused  the  governors  somewhat  'to 
dread  its  anger  or  opposition.  But  it  was  a  serious 
administrative  situation  when  the  leading  members 
of  the  Board  of  Trade  and  the  governors  were  intri 
guing  against  each  other.  The  real  difficulty  lay  in 
the  apparent  inability  of  Newcastle  to  use  men,  to 
assign  them  responsible  duties,  and  to  trust  them  to 
perform  them  faithfully.  Jealous  of  his  own  author 
ity,  he  insisted  upon  keeping  all  the  essential  threads 
of  administration  in  his  own  hands,  apparently  heed 
less  of  his  inability  to  attend  to  everything  personally 
or  too  vain  of  his  authority  to  entrust  any  portion  of  it 
to  others. 

answer  you  were  pleased  to  give  (viz.)  that  if  I  faithfully  performed  my 
duty  I  need  not  fear  any  man;  I  presume  to  mention  this  because  it  was 
reported  in  London,  I  should  very  suddenly  be  turned  out,  the  same  has  been 
constantly  said  here  and  declared  particularly  by  Montgomery  the  attorney- 
general  the  first  day  he  came."  -  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  vol. 
"i>  437- 

321  "I  find  Col.  B — n  is  my  enemy,  yet  he  always  writes  me  fair  and 
plausible.     It  must  be  on  Dunbar's  account  and  for  no  other  reason,  and  no 
doubt  he  influences  the  Board  of  Trade  to  my  prejudice;  we  must  therefore 
constantly   apply  to  their   superiours"  that  I   may  be   always   treated   with 
justice  and  reason."  —  Letter  to  Richard  Partridge,  April  27,  1732,  in  Belcher 
Papers,    Massachusetts   Historical   Society   Collections,   sixth   series,  vol.   vi, 
120-121. 

322  —  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  83  and  passim. 


146        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 
fzz* 

The  Board  of  Trade  had  control  of  a  certain  class 

of  appointments.  The  members  of  the  provincial 
I  councils  were  usually  appointed  on  the  suggestion  of 
the  governor  and  the  subsequent  nomination  by  the 
Board.  This  was  true  in  the  time  of  Bellomont, 
\  Cosby,  Hunter,  Belcher,  Burrington,323  and  by  1730 
had  become  an  established  custom  with  which  New 
castle  apparently  did  not  interfere.324  It  was  intended 
that  the  governor  should  have  control  of  his  council  as 
far  as  possible,  and  the  Board  regularly  honored  his 
v  recommendations  and  usually  supported  his  removals. 
There  was  an  exception,  however,  in  the  case  of 
Belcher  during  the  later  years  of  his  administration 
of  New  Jersey.  The  disorders  in  that  province  and 
the  complaints  against  him  had  resulted  in  his  losing 
caste  with  Halifax  who  refused  to  honor  his  nomina 
tions.  April  21,  1749,  Belcher  protested  in  vain 
against  the  appointment  of  Richard  Saltar  as  a  mem 
ber  of  the  council,325  and  in  November  of  the  next 
year  he  wrote  to  Partridge,  his  agent  in  London,  to 

323  See  the  numerous  illustrations  of  this  in  the  correspondence  of  the  dif 
ferent  governors,  in  New  York  Colonial  Documents',  New  Jersey  Archives', 
Belcher  Papers;  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records. 

324  Among  the  papers  in  the  Public  Record  Office  known  as  Plantations 
General  there  is  a  bundle  containing  four  note-books,  which  were  used  to 
keep  lists  of  colonial  councillors.     These  show,  in  most  cases,  when  an  ap 
pointment  was  made,  vacancies  from  time  to  time,  and  upon  whose  recom 
mendation  the  appointment  was  made.     Usually  the  governor's  recommenda 
tion   was   accepted,    although   there    are   several   cases   of   nominations   by 
Bladen,    Fane,    Halifax,    and    Bridger.     Bladen's    and    Bridger's    activities 
were  confined  largely  to  New  Hampshire.     In  New  Jersey  the  proprietors 
frequently  recommended,  and  the  same  was  true  for  Maryland  while  it  was 
a  royal  province. 

325  Letter  of  Belcher  to  the  Board  of  Trade.     One  of  the  objections  he 
made  to  this  appointment  was  that  it  violated  his  instructions  to  keep  the 
council  composed  of  an  equal  number  of  men  from  each  division  of  the 
province.     See:  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  vii,  247. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ADMINISTRATION         147 

endeavor  by  every  possible  means  to  secure  the  ap 
pointment  of  William  Morris.  His  letter  indicates 
that  Bedford's  influence  was  important  as  was  also 
that  of  Halifax.326  The  favor  of  the  latter  was  not  se 
cured,  however,  and  in  a  letter  to  Halifax  complain 
ing  of  the  lack  of  credit  given  his  nominations,  Belch 
er  says : 

When  I  was  formerly  for  eleven  years  governor  of  His 
Majesty's  province  of  New  Hampshire  I  never  had  one  nomi 
nation  of  a  counsellor  for  that  province  set  aside  at  your  Lord 
ship's  honourable  board  and  if  it  must  be  otherways  now  it 
cannot  tend  to  support  the  honour  and  dignity  of  the  king's 
government  intrusted  to  me.327 

He  was  right  in  saying  that  the  lack  of  credit  given 
his  nominations  weakened  his  position  and  influence 
as  governor,  but  the  Board  continued  to  disregard 
them.328  Thus  the  Board  exercised  at  all  times  pretty 
complete  control  over  the  appointment  of  councillors. 
The  Board  also  selected  the  colonial  secretaries, 
apparently  without  interference  on  the  part  of  the 

326  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  vii,  578. 

327  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  vii,  595.     August  10,  1751,  he  wrote  a 
letter  to  Lord  Hardwicke  in  regard  to  this  matter:     "I  am  sorry  to  acquaint 
your  Lordship  that  the  Lords  commissioners  for  trade  and  plantations  have 
lately  rejected  my  nomination  for  filling  vacancies  of  councillors     .     .     . 
and  in  their  stead  recommended  others  I  suppose  named  to  them  by  young 
Mr  Morris.     .     .     I  would  earnestly  intreat  your  Lordship  to  interpose,  etc. 
that  I  may  be  treated  as  one  of  His  Majesty's  governors."  —  Ibid.,  611. 

328  Some  reason   for  this  action  of  the  Board  is  found  in  its  letter  to 
Belcher  of  March   27,    1751:     "We   have  enquired   into   the   character  of 
Mr.  Samuel  Smith,  whom  you  recommend  to  us  as  a  proper  person  to  supply 
the  vacancy  in  the  council  occasion'd  by  the  death  of  Richard  Smith  Esq., 
and  we  find  that  he  is  a  wellwisher  to  the  rioters,  and  his  family  active  in 
that   faction.     When   we   recollect   that   Mr.    Morris,    the   last  person   you 
recommended  to  the  same  office,  was  found  upon  enquiry  to  bear  the  same 
character,  we  cannot  but  express  our  surprise,  that     .     .     .     you  should  thus 
attempt  to  fill  the  Council  Board  with  persons  disaffected  to  His  Majesty's 
government."  —  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  vii,  586. 


148        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

secretary  of  state ; 329  but  as  these  were  merely  clerical 
offices  with  exceeedingly  small  salaries  attached  to 
them,  the  power  of  filling  them  did  not  amount  to 
much.  Law  officers,  such  as  the  colonial  chief  jus 
tices  and  attorneys-general,  were  usually  appointed  by 
the  Board  on  the  recommendation  of  the  chief  justice 
and  the  attorney-general  in  England.330  As  long  as 
this  was  the  practice,  it  would  seem  that  men  should 
have  been  appointed  because  of  merit.  Apparently 
Newcastle  seized  upon  this  portion  of  the  colonial 
patronage,  however,  with  the  result  indicated  by  the 
blustering  Burrington.  If  the  latter  is  correct  in  say 
ing  that  Newcastle  appointed  the  officers  in  question, 
it  indicates  a  wide  departure  from  the  earlier  practice 
in  colonial  affairs  and  is  but  another  evidence  of  that 
politician's  pernicious  activity.  The  appointment  of 
these  minor  officers,  however,  was  of  little  impor 
tance.  The  one  officer  in  each  colony  with  whom  the 
Board  had  to  deal  and  who  should  have  acted  in  har 
mony  with  its  plans  was  the  chief  executive,  and  so 
long  as  the  latter  held  his  position  independent  of  the 
former,  the  Board  could  not  be  an  effective  adminis 
trative  body. 

329  Applications  for  these  offices  were  frequently  made  to  the  secretary  of 
state,  but  were  by  him  referred  to  the  Board.     The  latter  investigated  each 
application,  heard  what  the  candidates  had  to  say,  and  secured  from  them 
assurances  that  they  intended  to  reside  in  the  colony  to  which  they  were 
accredited  before  they  were   recommended  for   appointment.     See   the   ap 
pointment   of   Edmund   Jennings,   secretary   of   Virginia,    and    Sir   Thomas 
Lawrence  of  Maryland  in   1701-1702,  in  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  14,  pp. 
20,  28,  53,  56,  68,  247,  296;  also  the  letter  to  Sunderland,  December  17,  1708, 
recommending  Mr.  Rhodes  for  a  similar  position,  Ibid.,  20,  p.  381. 

330  See  the  appointment  of  an  attorney-general  for  Virginia  in  1703,  in 
Board  of  Trade  Journal,  16,  pp.  168-197,  also  that  of  a  similar  officer  for 
New  York  in  1705,  Ibid.,  17,  p.  398. 


/          DIFFICULTIES  OF  ADMINISTRATION         149 

"*  The  governors  of  the  proprietary  colonies  were  ap 
pointed  by  the  proprietaries,  but  had  to  receive  the 
royal  approbation.  In  practice  the  Board  of  Trade 
exercised  the  power  of  accepting  a  proposed  govern 
or.  Thus  Markham  was  not  approved  as  governor 
of  Pennsylvania  in  i699,331  and,  on  the  death  of  Gov 
ernor  Hamilton  in  1700,  William  Penn  named  a  new 
governor  and  asked  that  he  might  be  approved.  His 
request  was  referred  to  the  Board,  which  promptly 
returned  a  favorable  report.332  In  1711  the  Board  re 
ported  that  it  had  no  objections  to  the  approval  by  the 
queen  of  the  appointment  of  Edward  Hyde  as  gov 
ernor  of  North  Carolina,  provided  he  gave  bond  and 
qualified  according  to  law.333  Not  only  did  the  Board 
exercise  a  sort  of  royal  veto  on  the  nominations  of  the 
proprietaries  on  general  grounds;  but  it  was  respon 
sible  for  seeing  that  the  governors,  when  accepted, 
gave  sufficient  security  for  their  observance  of  the 
laws  of  trade  and  navigation.  This  is  clearly  shown 
by  the  Journal  of  the  Board  for  July  28,  1702.  Sir 
Matthew  Johnson  had  been  appointed  governor  of 
North  Carolina;  Archibald  Hutcheson  attended  with 
him  and  asked  that  Mr.  Johnson,  a  son  of  the  govern 
or,  and  Thomas  Carey  might  be  accepted  as  security. 
The  Board  consented  and  directed  them  to  lodge  the 
bond  with  the  treasurer.  Similar  action  was  taken 

331  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  12,  p.  157.     See  also  the  difficulty  over  the 
approval  of  Captain  Haskett  as  governor  of  the  Bahama  Islands,  Ibid.,  13, 
pp.  4-66.     Also  Proprieties,  26,  pp.  203-245. 

332  Penn-Logan  Correspondence,  vol.  i,  p.  206. 

333  The  usual  bond  was  two  thousand  pounds,  but  as  the  trade  of  North 
Carolina  was  insignificant,  the  Board  suggested  that  a  bond  of  half  that 
amount  should  be   accepted.     See:  North   Carolina   Colonial  Records,   vol. 
i>  773- 


150        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

when  Charles  Eden  was  appointed  governor  of  the 
same  province  in  I7I3-334  This  power  over  the  selec 
tion  of  the  proprietary  governors,  such  as  it  was,  af 
forded  the  Board  one  of  its  most  effective  weapons  for 
extending  the  royal  control  over  those  governments.335 
The  absence  of  the  appointing  power  in  the 
hands  of  the  men  who  were  entrusted  with  colo 
nial  affairs,  causing  division  of  responsibility  and  lack 
of  control,  was  doubtless  one  of  the  most  fundamental 
weaknesses  of  the  Board  of  Trade ;  but  it  was  no  long 
er  a  defect  after  1752.  It  has  already  been  stated  that 
one  part  of  the  bargain  by  which  Halifax  assisted  in 
forming  the  ministry  in  1751  was  that  control  of  colo 
nial  affairs,  including  the  patronage,  should  be  en 
trusted  to  him.336  The  arrangement  was  made  legal 
March  n,  1752,  by  an  Order  in  Council  which  em 
powered  the  Board  of  Trade  to  appoint  all  colonial 
officers  from  governor  down  to  the  lowest  appointee.337 

334  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  vol.  i,  557;  vol.  ii,  51. 

335  See  the  Penn-Logan  Correspondence  [vol.  i,  136  and  passim]  for  the 
difficulties  Penn  encountered  because  the  Board  of  Trade  condemned  Gover 
nor  Hamilton  as  not  properly  qualified. 

336  See  page  49. 

337  "It  is  therefore  hereby  further  ordered,  that  the  said  Lords  commis 
sioners  for  trade  and  plantations  do,  from  time  to  time,  as  vacancies  shall 
happen  by  death  or  removals,  present  unto  His  Majesty  in  Council,  for  his  ap 
probation,  the  name  or  names  of  such  person  or  persons,  as  the  said  commis 
sioners  from  the  best  of  their  judgment  and  information,  shall  think  duly 
qualified  to  be  governors  or  deputy  governors,  or  to  be  of  His  Majesty's  coun 
cil  or  his  council  at  law,  or  secretaries  in  the  respective  plantations,   and 
likewise  to  present  to  His  Majesty  for  his  approbation,  the  names  of  all  oth 
er  officers,  which  have  been,  or  may  be  found  necessary  for  the  administra 
tion  of  justice,  and  the  execution  of  government  there,  excepting  only  such  as 
are  or  may  be  appointed  for  the  direction  and  regulation  of  His  Majesty's 
customs  and  revenues,  and  such  as  are  or  may  be  under  the  directions  and 
authority    of    the    Lords    Commissioners    of    the    admiralty."  —  New    Jersey 
Archives,  vol.  viii,  part  i,  24-25. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ADMINISTRATION         151 

The  Board  of  Trade  in  this  case  meant  Halifax,  but 
he  soon  found  that  he  had  to  insist  upon  his  legal 
rights  to  prevent  Newcastle  from  continuing  his  poli 
cy  of  conferring  colonial  governorships  upon  men  un 
fitted  for  the  offices,  and  who  had  no  intention  of  doing 
anything  more  strenuous  than  drawing  their  salaries. 
Nothing  shows  more  plainly  the  pernicious  side  of 
Newcastle's  control  of  colonial  affairs  than  the  blunt 
demand  from  Halifax  for  him  to  keep  his  hands  off 
of  the  Virginia  governorship  and  to  permit  the  selec 
tion  of  an  able  man  for  that  place.338 

Halifax  not  only  insisted  upon  his  rights,  but  ex 
ercised  them  vigorously  himself.  Officials  in  Amer 
ica  soon  learned  that  they  must  look  to  him  for  pre- 

338  The  sudden  death  of  the  Earl  of  Albemarle  in  1754  left  a  vacancy 
in  the  governorship  of  Virginia  and  called  forth  the  following  personal 
letter  from  Halifax  to  Newcastle:  "You  are  sensible,  my  dear  Lord,  that  in 
consequence  of  the  late  order  in  council,  which  your  Grace  has  so  frequently 
assured  me,  you  would  strictly  observe,  the  right  of  recommending  to  this 
employment  belongs  to  the  Board  of  Trade.  .  .  It  is  unnecessary  for  me 
to  trouble  you  with  the  several  reasons  that  occur  to  me,  evincing  the  inex 
pediency  of  any  longer  suffering  the  government  of  Virginia  to  remain  a 
sinecure,  yet  it  is  my  duty  to  observe  that  at  this  time  it  would  be  attended 
with  the  worst  consequences."  The  people  of  Virginia  had  long  complained 
that  though  they  have  given  a  considerable  salary  to  a  governor  they  have 
been  ruled  by  a  substitute.  "And  I  think  they  have  the  greater  reason  to 
complain,  as  being  the  only  province  in  North  America  who  have  granted 
a  permanent  revenue  to  the  crown  for  the  support  of  government,  and  indeed 
this  complaint  so  justly  founded  has  been  constantly  used  by  the  other 
provinces  as  an  argument  in  support  of  their  disobedience  to  the  king's 
commands,  and  their  refusal  to  pass  revenue  laws  of  the  same  sort,  but  if 
at  this  critical  conjuncture  when  both  from  ye  danger  that  threatens  them, 
and  the  efforts  they  are  exerting  by  his  Majesty's  orders  in  their  defense 
they  have  more  than  a  common  right  to  be  well  governed  and  by  the  person 
they  pay,  late  precedents  should  be  suffered  to  prevail,  and  that  employ 
ment  which  ought  to  be  so  busy  and  is  so  important  an  one  should  be  con 
tinued  a  sinecure  —  I  leave  your  Grace  to 'judge  what  uneasiness  it  would 
create  and  how  little  serious  the  world  would  think  us  in  the  present  measure 


152        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

ferment,339  and  the  records  all  indicate  that  apppoint- 
ments  emanated  from  the  Board.  This  not  only 
strengthened  the  control  of  that  body  over  colonial 
administration,  but  enabled  it  to  carry  out  a  general 
merit  system  as  regards  promotions.  Some  governor 
ships  were  looked  upon  as  more  important  than  others, 
and  the  remuneration  varied  greatly.  Under  Hali 
fax,  when  a  vacancy  occurred  in  a  desirable  position, 
there  was  a  general  shifting  of  governors,  which 
amounted  to  a  promotion  for  each  one.  Thus  in  1759 
the  death  of  Governor  Haldane  of  Jamaica  resulted 
in  the  following  changes :  Governor  Littleton  of 
South  Carolina  became  governor  of  Jamaica;  Thom 
as  Pownall,  governor  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  went  to 
South  Carolina;  Francis  Bernard,  governor  of  New 
Jersey,  went  to  Massachusetts  Bay;  and  Thomas 
Boone  was  appointed  governor  of  New  Jersey  to  fill 
the  vacancy  thus  created.340 

The  most  striking  example  of  the  new  spirit  back 
of  the  Board  was  its  treatment  of  Governor  Hardy  of 
New  Jersey,  who  had  succeeded  Thomas  Boone  in 
1761,  and  in  less  than  a  year  had  violated  his  in 
structions  by  appointing  the  justices  of  the  supreme 
court  during  good  behavior  instead  of  during  pleas- 

of  embarking  troops  for  the  defense  of  Virginia,  should  she  be  denied  what 
she  has  a  title  to  expect  in  time  of  ye  profoundest  peace,  the  use  of  her  own 
governor. 

"A  man  of  quality,  a  military  man,  and  a  sensible  and  honest  one  should 
be  sent  and  such  an  one  I  hope  may  be  found."  —  British  Museum  Addi 
tional  Manuscripts,  32737,  f.  505. 

339  See  the  letter  of  Governor  Sharpe  to  William  Sharpe,  July  6,  1756, 
in  "Sharpe's  Correspondence,"  Maryland  Archives,  vol.  ix,  47 ;  also  that  of 
Thomas  Cant  to  Reverend  Doctor  Johnson,  November  4,  1760,  in  New  York 
Colonial  Documents,  vol.  vii,  449. 

340  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  67,  p.  245.     At  the  meeting  of  the  Board 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ADMINISTRATION         153 

ure.  January  20,  1762,  he  wrote  the  Board  of  his 
action.341  Two  months  later  that  body  sent  a  strong 
representation  to  Secretary  Egremont  stating  the  of 
fense  of  Governor  Hardy  and  concluding: 

But  aggravated  as  his  guilt  is  by  the  mode  of  the  appoint 
ment  and  by  the  influence  which  it  will  necessary  have  in  the 
neighboring  Provinces  of  Pennsylvania  and  New  York,  and 
particularly  in  the  latter,  where  the  utmost  zeal  and  efforts  of 
the  lieutenant-governor  has  been  hardly  sufficient  to  restrain 
the  intemperate  zeal  and  indecent  opposition  of  the  assembly 
to  your  Majesty's  authority  and  royal  determination  upon  this 
point:  It  becomes  under  these  circumstances  our  indispensable 
duty  to  propose  that  this  gentleman  may  be  forthwith  recalled 
from  his  government  as  a  necessary  example  to  deter  others  in 
the  same  situation  from  acts  of  disobedience  to  Your  Majesty's 
orders,  and  as  a  measure  necessary  to  support  your  Majesty's 
just  rights  and  authority  in  the  colonies  and  to  enable  us  to  do 
our  duty  in  the  station  your  Majesty  has  been  graciously 
pleased  to  place  us  in,  and  effectually  to  execute  the  trust  com 
mitted  to  us.342 

This  representation  was  promptly  confirmed  and  Wil 
liam  Franklin  appointed  in  the  place  of  Hardy.345 
Councillors  were  removed  in  the  same  summary  way 
for  partisan  opposition  to  the  governor,  and  the  long, 
tedious  investigations  and  delays  which  were  former- 

which  prepared  the  formal  recommendations,  Halifax  informed  the  members 
that  the  royal  assent  had  already  been  secured  to  the  changes.  This  indi 
cates  clearly  that  Halifax  personally  controlled  appointments  during  his 
administration.  See:  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  67,  p.  247. 

341  "I  must  observe  to  Your  Lordships  likewise  that  I  found  the  general 
assembly  had  come  to  a  resolution  not  to  make  any  provision  for  the  judges 
in  the  bill  for  support  of  government  if  they  accepted  commissions  during 
pleasure."  —  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ix,  346-347. 

342  Representation  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  March  27,  1762,  in  C.D.  5, 

999,  PP-  137-138. 

343  Franklin  was  probably  appointed  directly  by  Egremont.     See:  New 
Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ix,  368. 


154        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

ly  so  common  were  no  longer  allowed.344  In  a  word, 
the  control  of  the  Board  of  Trade  over  appointments 
after  1752  was  as  direct  and  unlimited  as  any  execu 
tive  board  could  desire,  division  of  responsibility  had 
ceased,  and  direct,  responsible  authority  on  the  part 
of  the  Board  was  on  trial. 

Weakness  of  the  governor's  position 

There  was  another  serious  difficulty  in  colonial  ad 
ministration  very  closely  connected  with  the  division 
of  responsibility  so  characteristic  of  the  period  down 
to  the  time  of  the  appointment  of  Halifax.  This  was 
the  weakness  of  the  position  of  the  governor,  due  to 
the  method  of  his  appointment  and  the  conditions 
under  which  he  had  to  work.  At  home  he  was  con 
stantly  subject  to  intrigues  connected  with  the  vicissi 
tudes  of  English  politics.  His  position  was  coveted 
by  other  men  who  were  anxious  for  an  opportunity 
to  try  their  fortunes  in  official  life  in  America,  and 
who  exerted  more  or  less  constant  pressure  upon  the 
leading  ministers  to  secure  an  appointment.  Each 
governor  was  thus  under  the  necessity  of  keeping  the 
good  will  of  the  secretary  of  state  through  whom  he 
had  secured  his  appointment  or  by  whom  he  could 
be  removed. 

More  important,  however,  and  farther  reaching 

in  its  influence  was  the  effect  of  these  attacks  upon  his 

position  in  his  government.     British  administrative 

'N  control  of  the  American  colonies  centered  in  the  exec- 

344  See  the  case  of  the  suspension  of  Jonathan  Rutherford  from  the 
council  of  North  Carolina.  In  this  case  the  Board  confirmed  the  action  of 
Governor  Dobbs  in  removing  him,  without  even  awaiting  his  defense,  and 
maintained  that  its  action  was  justified.  See:  Board  of  Trade  to  the  Com- 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ADMINISTRATION         155 

utive,  and  anything  which  weakened  the  position  of 
the  executive  was  certain  to  weaken  the  control  by 
the  home  government. 

Sent  over  with  instructions  requiring  him  to  keep 
administrative  affairs  closely  under  his  own  supervi 
sion,  and  which  if  followed  would  have  prevented  any 
growth  of  independence  on  the  part  of  the  colonies, 
he  found  he  could  not  even  secure  his  own  salary,  ex 
cept  on  such  conditions  as  the  assemblies  chose  to 
make  with  him.  His  commission  made  him  com 
mander  of  the  military  forces,  but  he  found  none  to 
command,  none  even  to  protect  him  from  insult.  Such 
military  stores  as  existed  were  the  property  of  the 
assembly  and  were  controlled  by  it.  If  the  militia 
was  needed  in  any  emergency,  the  money  for  its  sup 
port  had  to  be  voted  by  the  local  legislature, 
and  too  often  the  entire  control  of  it  was  as 
sumed  by  that  all  powerful  body.  Instead  of  being 
independent,  he  found  that  the  few  powers  he  still 
had  were  slowly  but  surely  slipping  from  him,  and 
there  was  a  constant  temptation  to  bargain  them  away 
for  what  he  could  get.  Under  such  conditions  it  was 
of  the  greatest  importance  for  imperial  purposes  that 
the  governor  should  have  the  most  constant  and  un 
qualified  support  by  the  home  officials.  It  was  at 
this  point  that  the  system  of  divided  responsibility 
showed  its  greatest  weakness. 

Each  governor  had  to  contend  with  more  or  less 
intractable  elements.  If  he  observed  his  instructions, 
he  had  to  face  strong  opposition,  which  sometimes 

mittee  of  the  Privy  Council,  July  28,  1758,  in  North  Carolina  Colonial 
Records,  vol.  v,  959-960. 


156        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

centered  in  his  own  council,345  sometimes  in  the  as 
sembly,  and  at  times  in  both.  It  was  always  an  easy 
matter  for  the  opposition  to  find  grounds  for  com 
plaints  against  him.  These  complaints  were  referred 
to  the  Board  of  Trade  for  investigation,  which  al 
ways  gave  the  governor  an  opportunity  to  deny  the 
charges  and  justify  his  conduct.  But  it  took  his  time, 
and  it  cost  money.  As  he  could  not  go  to  England 
to  defend  himself,  he  was  nearly  always  required  to 
maintain  an  agent  in  London  to  look  after  his  interests 
and  protect  him  from  attacks.346  Sometimes  this  agent 
was  paid  by  the  assembly  but  more  frequently  by  the 
governor  himself,  and  at  times  he  even  had  to  face 
complaints  which  were  prosecuted  by  the  assembly 
through  its  own  paid  agent  in  London.  Under  such 
conditions,  any  rumors  of  lack  of  support  by  the  home 
government  rendered  the  position  of  the  governor 
doubly  difficult  and  increased  the  opposition  to  him. 
Governor  Bellomont  found  it  necessary  to  convince 
the  factions  in  New  York  that  he  had  the  full  sup 
port  of  the  Board  of  Trade  and  the  king.347  Hunter 
was  subject  to  constant  attacks  and  intrigues  for  his 

345  Such  was  the  situation  when  Bellomont  entered  upon  his   adminis 
tration    in    New    York.     See    his    correspondence,    in    New    York    Colonial 
Documents,  vol.  iv,  passim. 

346  Not  only  did  the  interests  of  the  governor  require  the  presence  of  an 
agent  in  London,  but  the  Board  of  Trade  insisted  that  he  maintain  one.     In 
a  letter  to  Governor  Hunter  in  1713  concerning  the  taking  out  of  the  orders 
for  the   appointment  of  members  of  the  council  it  said:     "If  you  had  an 
agent  here,  we  could  send  to  him  to  do  it,  but  as  you  have  none,  we  do  not 
know  how  long  the  orders  may  lie  before  they  are  dispatch'd  to  you.     This 
shows  you  the  necessity  of  having  an  agent  for  each  of  your  governments, 
and  we  desire  therefore  that  you  use  your  utmost  endeavours  to  get  such  a 
one  established."  —  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iv,  183.     See  other  letters  on 
pages  375,  388,  and  passim. 

347  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iv,  395. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ADMINISTRATION         157 

removal,  but  his  actions  were  finally  fully  approved  • 
in  England,  the  news  of  which  apparently  greatly  de-  ' 
creased  the  activity  of  his  opponents.348 

The  most  striking  illustration  of  the  effect  upon  the 
position  of  the  governor  of  lack  of  support  by  the 
home  officials  is  that  of  Belcher  in  New  Jersey.  It 
was  confidently  expected  that  he  would  lose  his  posi 
tion,  and  people  were  awaiting  news  of  the  appoint 
ment  of  his  successor;  consequently  he  was  helpless,  as 
he  could  get  no  effective  support  from  either  council 
or  assembly.  In  the  meantime  rioters  held  control 
of  a  considerable  portion  of  the  colony  and  prevented 
the  courts  from  sitting.349  That  was  the  situation  of 
affairs  when  Halifax  secured  an  extraordinary  meet 
ing  of  the  Board  for  the  consideration  of  conditions 
in  that  colony.350 

Governor  Burrington  of  North  Carolina  also  found 
his  difficulties  greatly  increased  on  account  of  the 
real  or  fancied  opposition  of  Martin  Bladen.  He 
says  in  one  of  his  letters  to  Newcastle  that  his  enemies  • 
are  confidently  asserting  that  his  recall  is  imminent.351 
Governor  Sharpe  of  Maryland,  in  his  long  struggle 
with  his  assembly  over  financial  affairs,  could  not  con 
vince  that  body  that  the  authorities  in  London  really 
supported  him,  and  it  took  a  letter  from  the  secretary 
of  state  himself  to  convince  the  assembly  that  it  would 

348  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  v,  173,  405-411,  and  passim.  See 
also  the  efforts  to  secure  an  act  of  Parliament  in  his  behalf. 

349  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  vi,  passim,  especially  the  letters  of  Morris, 
Partridge,  Alexander,  and  Paris. 

350  See  the  report  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  June  i,  1750,  in  New  Jersey 
Archives,  vol.  vii,  466-528. 

351  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  vol.  iii,  437. 


158        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

not  receive  enough  support  from  that  source  to  force 
Sharpe  and  his  council  to  give  way.352 

Illustrations  could  be  multiplied,  for  almost  every 
governor  had  to  face  the  problem.     After  the  ap 
pointing  and  investigating  powers  were  consolidated 
in  the  hands  of  the  Board,  the  difficulty  does  not  ap 
pear  to  have  been  so  great,  but  the  mischief  was  al 
ready  done.     A  half  century  of  such  conditions  had 
resulted  in  a  serious  situation  for  the  empire.     The\ 
hands  of  the  executive  had  been  weakened  by  lack  of  I 
support  and  even  by  opposition  in  England  at  the   i 
very  time  that  the  assembly  was  usurping  the  whole^/ 
field  of  government  within  each  colony. 

The  Rise  of  the  Assembly 

The  greatest  problem  before  the  Board  of  Trade, 
however,  was  not  one  of  poor  communications,  of 
,  divided  responsibility,  nor  of  lack  of  power  to  issue 
j  orders  unchecked.     Its  greatest  task  was  to  operate  a\U 
|  constitution  which  contemplated  what  was  really  _an) 
impossible  form  of  government^ The  constitution  of 
the  royal  province  was  embraced  in  the  commissions 
and  instructions  of  the  governors,  which  corresponded 
to  the  charters  in  the  proprietary  and  charter  colonies, 
and  regularly  supplanted  them  as  the  proprietary 
colonies  were  transformed  into  royal  provinces. 

The  commissions  and  instructions  contemplated  a 
government  by  a  governor  and  a  two-chambered  leg- 

352  Egremont  to  Sharpe,  July  10,  1762.  "His  Majesty  has  judged  it 
proper  to  direct  me  to  express  His  sentiments  on  the  conduct  of  the  assembly 
of  your  province,  which  you  will  make  known  to  them  in  the  manner  you 
shall  judge  most  expedient  for  the  King's  service,  in  order  that  they  may 
not  deceive  themselves  hy  supposing  that  their  behavior  is  not  seen  here  in 
its  true  light."  —  Sharpe's  Correspondence,  vol.  iii,  63. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ADMINISTRATION         159 

islature,  one  chamber  of  which  was  to  be  elected  by 
the  people  and  the  other  appointed  by  the  crown.  The 
upper  house  acted  as  an  executive  and  advisory  coun 
cil  for  the  governor,  and  was  also  supposed  to  have 
as  much  voice  in  legislation  as  the  lower  house.  All 
executive  power  was  vested  in  the  governor  and  his 
council,  and  the  governor  had  a  veto  on  all  legisla.- 


tion.358 

Aside  from  the  somewhat  insignificant  sums  real 
ized  from  quit  rents,  all  public  money  had  to  be  raised 
by  taxation  on  votes  of  the  assembly.  The  money  so 
raised  should  have  been  lodged  with  the  receiver-gen 
eral  appointed  by  the  crown,  and  should  have  been 
paid  out  on  warrants  drawn  by  the  governor  in  coun 
cil.354  Thus  while  the  assembly  voted  the  taxes,  it  had 
nothing  to  do  with  their  expenditure. 

Such  was  the  constitution  of  New  York  in  1696  and 
such  continued  to  be  the  constitution  de  jure  of  that 
and  the  other  royal  provinces.     History  has  proved 
that  such  a  constitution  is  unworkable  for  any  great 
length  of  time,  for  the  power  that  grants  the  taxes\ 
isj)0und  Conner  or  Iqt^r  tn  ^nntrnl  \\\r\r  eypenfjrhire   \ 
The  constitutional  history  of  the  American  colonies 

353  Commission   of  Governor  Bellomont,   in  New  York  Colonial  Docu 
ments,  vol.  iv,  266-273,  284-292;  instructions  to  George  Burrington,  1730, 
in  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  vol.  iii,  90-118;  instructions  to  Arthur 
Dobbs,   1754,  Ibid.,  vol.  v,   1107-1144;   instructions  to  Francis  Bernard  as 
governor  of  Massachusetts,  1758,  in  Greene's  Provincial  Governor,  234-260. 

354  Bellomont'  s  instructions:     "You  shall  not  suffer  any  publick  money 
whatsoever  to  be  issued  or  disposed  of  otherwise  than  by  warrant  under 
your  hand,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  council."  —  New  York 
Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iv,  286.     This  clause  was  later  changed  so  as  to 
allow  the   assembly  to  examine   the  records  of   receipts   and  expenditures. 
Instructions  to  George  Burrington  and  to  Arthur  Dobbs,  in  North  Carolina 
Colonial  Records,  vol.  iii,  100,  vol.  v,  1115. 


160        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

during  the  first  half  of  the  eighteenth  century  is  a 
history  of  the  subversion  of  the  constitution  by  the 

.  growing  ascendency  of  the  colonial  assemblies. 

The  financial  power  of  the  assembly  was  the  device 
by  which  the  council  was  excluded  from  all  effective 
control  over  legislation,  and  by  which  the  executive 
powers  of  the  governor  and  council  were  successfully 
usurped.  The  process  in  all  the  colonies  was  essen 
tially  the  same,  but  the  stages  in  the  development  of 
the  assumptions  by  the  assembly  are  best  seen  in  the 
case  of  New  York,  where  the  movement  began  in  the 
administration  of  Cornbury.  His  mismanagement 
and  corrupt  use  of  the  public  money  led  the  assembly, 
in  1704,  to  demand  that  money  raised  by  taxation 
should  be  lodged  with  its  own  treasurer  who  was  ac 
countable  only  to  the  assembly  itself.355  This  proposal 
involved  a  clear  infraction  of  Cornbury's  instruc 
tions.356  The  council  sought  to  amend  the  revenue 
bill  so  as  to  remove  this  objection,  but  it  was  met  by 
the  point  blank  assertion  that  the  assembly  would 

^permit  no  amendment  of  a  money  bill.357  As  a  conse 
quence  of  this  difference  of  opinion,  the  money  bill 
failed;  but  the  dangers  to  the  colony  made  some  pro 
vision  necessary,  and  two  years  later  the  governor 
and  the  council  were  forced  to  give  way.  The  money 
was  raised,  Abraham  de  Peyster  was  made  treasurer, 
commissioners  were  appointed  to  supervise  the  ex- 

355  Letter  of  Cornbury  to  the  Board  of  Trade,  New  York  Colonial  Docu 
ments^  vol.  iv,  1145-1149. 

356  His  instructions  directed  him  "not  to  permit  any  clause  whatsoever 
to  be  inserted  in  any  law  for  levying  money  or  the  value  of  money,  whereby 
the  same   shall   not  be  made   liable  to  be   accounted   for  unto  us  here   in 
England,  and  to  our  high  treasurer  or  our  commissioners  for  our  treasury 
for  the  time  being."  —  Ibid. 

357  Cornbury  says  this  is  a  "new  Doctrine  in  this  part  of  the  world." 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ADMINISTRATION         161 

penditures,  and  the  treasurer  was  directed  to  pay  out 
money,  on  their  warrants  and  "by  no  other  order 
mandate  or  warrants  whatsoever."  358 

Cornbury  reported  the  attempted  encroachments 
to  the  Board  of  Trade  in  1705,  but  the  members  of 
that  bureau  did  not  fully  grasp  the  significance  of  the 
movement.  They  answered  him  as  follows : 

The  assembly  was  very  much  to  blame  in  disputing  the 
council's  amendments  in  that  bill,  for  that  the  council  has 
undoubtedly  as  much  to  do  in  the  forming  of  bills  for  the 
granting  and  raising  of  money  as  the  assembly,  and  conse 
quently  have  a  right  to  alter  or  mend  any  such  money  bills  as 
well  as  the  assembly.  In  other  Her  Majesty's  plantations,  the 
assemblies  do  not  pretend  to  the  sole  right  of  framing  money 
bills,  but  admit  of  the  council's  amendments  to  such  bills,  as 
there  may  be  occasion.  No  assembly  in  the  plantations  ought 
to  pretend  to  all  the  privileges  of  the  House  of  Commons  in 
England,  which  will  no  more  be  allowed  them,  then  it  would 
be  to  the  council,  if  they  should  pretend  to  all  the  privileges 
of  the  House  of  Lords  here.359 

The  letter  went  on  to  say  that  the  assembly  might  be 
permitted  to  have  its  own  treasurer  when  it  raised 
extraordinary  taxes,  and  that  in  such  cases  receipts 
could  be  used  instead  of  warrants  from  the  governor 
in  council.360 

The  point  once  gained  by  the  assembly  was  never 
surrendered.  Money  continued  to  be  raised  and 
lodged  with  the  treasurer  instead  of  with  the  receiver- 
general,  and  the  receipt  of  the  party  to  whom  the 

358  Act  for  raising  three  thousand  pounds  for  the  defense  of  the  city  of 
New  York,  passed  October  21,  1706,  cited  in  New  York  Colonial  Laws,  vol. 
i,  596. 

359  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iv,  1171-1172. 

360  In  such  cases  the  instructions  required  the  treasurer  to  be  accountable 
to  the  officers  of  the  treasury  in  England.     See  clause  30  of  the  instructions 
to  Dobbs,  in  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  vol.  v,  1116. 


1 62        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

money  was  paid  was  the  only  warrant  which  was  re 
quired  or  allowed.361  In  some  cases  the  troops  were 
paid  on  the  presentation  of  their  muster  rolls,  and  in 
1711  even  the  governor  was  paid  his  salary  on  his  own 
receipt.362  The  act  of  1713,  levying  import  duties  to 
pay  the  ordinary  charges  of  government,  lodged  the 
proceeds  of  such  duties  with  the  receiver-general  but 
made  that  officer  accountable  to  the  treasurer.363  In 
the  final  settlement  two  years  later,  the  assembly  al 
lowed  the  ordinary  expenses  of  government  to  be  paid 
out  on  warrants  of  the  governor  in  council,  but  Hunter 
had  to  consent  to  the  issue  of  bills  of  credit  and  to  the 
treasurer  becoming  the  sole  custodian  of  the  public 
taxes.364  The  arrangements  of  that  year  were  ree'n- 
acted  from  time  to  time  until  the  administration  of 
Lieutenant-governor  Clarke.  When  the  last  five- 
year  revenue  act  expired  in  I737,365  that  gentleman 
was  engaged  in  a  quarrel  with  his  assembly  over  the 
question  of  accounts,  consequently  no  appropriation 
bill  was  passed  for  two  years.368  Finally  in  1739,  the 

361  See  the  acts  of  1708,  1709,  1711,  1712,  in  New  York  Colonial  Laws, 
vol.  i,  607,  628,  654,  669,  693,  746,  812. 

362  -.Ibid,,    730,    753. 

363  New  York  Colonial  Laws,  vol.  i,  779-780.     It  seems  a  curious  anomaly 
that  the  receiver-general  of  the  province  should  be  made  accountable  to  an 
officer  who  was  himself  not  accountable  to  the  crown. 

364  —  Ibid.,  847-858.     This  involved  two  violations  of  his  instructions, 
one  in  the  issuing  of  bills  of  credit,  the  other  in  lodging  public  money  with 
an  officer  not  accountable  to  the  auditor- general  in  England.     The  power  of 
the  governor  and  council  to  lay  out  the  money  was  also  limited  by  the  oath 
imposed  on  the  treasurer  not  to  issue  any  money  except  as  provided  for  by 
specific  appropriation  acts. 

365  The  last  five  year  act  was  passed  in  1732.     See:  New  York  Colonial 
Laws,  vol.  ii,  768-806. 

366  A  tax  bill  was  passed  in  1737,  but  the  last  clause  forbade  the  treas 
urer  to  disburse  the  money  until   an   appropriation  bill  had  been  passed. 
Ibid.,  1071. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ADMINISTRATION         163 

governor  and  council  had  to  give  way  and  accept  a 
bill  on  the  terms  offered  by  the  assembly.  This  bill 
constitutes  a  landmark  in  the  growing  power  of  the 
assembly.  Salaries  of  officers  were  ordered  paid  by 
name  and  amount; 367  and  as  the  bill  was  an  annual 
one,  the  governor  was  practically  forced  to  select  of 
ficers  who  were  acceptable  to  the  assembly  or  that 
body  would  grant  them  no  salaries. 
^  -  The  power  to  issue  public  money  had  been  taken 
from  the  governor  and  council  in  1706;  and  while  it 
was  partly  restored  in  1715,  it  could  only  be  exer 
cised  according  to  the  specifications  of  the  appropria 
tion  acts.  In  1739  all  control  over  expenditures  was 
taken  away  and  the  treasurer  ordered  to  accept  re 
ceipts  as  vouchers.368  In  addition  the  assembly  had 
used  the  money  bill  as  a  means  of  controlling  appoint 
ments.  This  result  had  been  achieved  by  the  exclu 
sion  of  the  council  from  all  power  to  amend  a  revenue 
measure;  for  had  the  power  of  amendment  been  pre 
served,  the  most  objectionable  features  of  these  bills 
might  have  been  eliminated. 

The  Board  of  Trade  was  not  allowed  to  remain 
ignorant  of  the  change  which  was  taking  place,  as 
Hunter  besieged  it  with  complaints  and  appeals  for 
assistance.369  It  assured  him  again  and  again  of  its 
hearty  support  and  that  the  council  was  a  coordinate 
branch  of  the  legislature  with  full  power  to  amend 
any  bill  laid  before  it,  that  the  assembly  had  no  rights 
other  than  those  given  by  the  commission  and  instruc- 

367  New  York  Colonial  Laws,  vol.  iii,  38-50. 

368  Except  the  salaries  of  the  governor  and  the  other  chief  officers  of  the 
colony,  for  which  warrants  were  to  be  issued  by  the  governor  in  council. 

369  See  his  numerous  letters  to  the  Board,  in  New  York  Colonial  Docu 
ments,  vol.  v,  passim. 


1 64        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

tions  of  the  governor,  and  that  "the  assuming  a  right 
no  ways  inherent  in  them,  is  a  violation  of  the  consti 
tution  of  the  government  of  that  province  and  is 
derogatory  to  her  Majesty's  royal  prerogative."  37° 
Such  opinions,  however,  were  futile  unless  they  were 
backed  by  actions.  Hunter  had  seen  this  and  had 
asked  for  a  settlement  by  act  of  Parliament,  and  added 
"that  if  the  remedy  for  these  evils  be  long  delay' d  it 
may  cost  more  than  the  province  is  worth."  A  bill  to 
establish  by  act  of  Parliament  a  permanent  civil  list 
for  the  colony  was  prepared,  but  for  some  reason  it 
was  never  introduced;  * 'consequently  Hunter  was 
left  to  make  the  best  terms  he  could  with  his  all-pow 
erful  assembly. 

That  body  having  once  acquired  a  privilege  never 
surrendered  it.  The  appropriation  bill  continued  to 
be  drawn  in  the  form  of  that  of  1739.  The  governor 

370  Letter  of  the  Board  of  Trade  to  Governor  Hunter,  June  12,  1712,  in 
New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  v,  333,  359.  The  effect  of  the  example 
of  New  York  upon  the  action  of  the  other  colonies  was  also  considered. 
"Most  of  them  have  already  shewn  too  much  inclination  to  assume  pretended 
rights  tending  to  an  independency  on  the  crown  of  Great  Britain." 

*  Two  attempts  were  made  to  secure  a  settlement  by  act  of  Parliament, 
one  in  1711,  another  in  1713.  See  the  letters  of  the  Board  to  Governor 
Hunter  and  Dartmouth.  There  is  a  manuscript  copy  of  this  bill  among  the 
Newcastle  papers.  It  states  that,  whereas  the  general  assembly  of  New  York 
had  enacted  a  general  revenue  act  for  two  years,  beginning  May,  1693, 
which  was  afterward  extended  to  May,  1709 ;  and  whereas,  upon  frequent 
application  to  the  assembly  it  had  refused  to  grant  other  subsidies  sufficient 
to  run  the  government,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  four  companies  of  soldiers 
and  many  ships  of  war  were  maintained  at  the  expense  of  the  crown  for 
their  defense;  the  Commons  of  Great  Britain,  being  desirous  that  a  revenue 
should  be  settled  in  that  province  upon  her  Majesty,  sufficient  to  defray  the 
expenses  of  that  government  and  equal  to  what  had  formerly  been  granted, 
grant  that  the  following  rates  should  hereafter  be  maintained.  Then  fol 
lows  a  detailed  customs  act  in  apparently  the  same  form  as  the  former  rev 
enue  act.  See:  British  Museum  Additional  Manuscripts,  33028,  ff.  23-31; 
New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  v,  285,  359. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ADMINISTRATION         165 

was  permitted,  however,  to  issue  warrants  for  the  pay 
ment  of  those  officers  who  were  appointed  directly 
by  the  crown,  although  their  names  and  salaries  con 
tinued  to  be  inserted  in  the  appropriation  bill.  A 
small  contingent  fund  of  one  hundred  pounds  was 
also  placed  at  the  disposal  of  the  governor.371 

The  war  from  1744  to  1748  only  tended  to  expand 
the  functions  of  the  assembly.  Large  sums  were 
needed  for  military  purposes,  but  their  expenditure 
was  always  kept  closely  in  the  hands  of  the  assembly 
or  its  commissioners.372  Even  the  control  of  the  troops  - 
was  practically  assumed.  Governor  Clinton  could 
not  resist  as  long  as  the  war  lasted,  but  at  its  conclu 
sion  he  entered  into  a  struggle  to  regain  the  executive  • 
functions  which  had  been  assumed  by  the  assembly. 
He,  too,  made  continuous  appeals  to  the  Board  of 
Trade,  and  to  the  secretary  of  state  for  the  Southern 
Department.373  These  resulted  in  an  investigation  by 
the  Board,  which  was  begun  in  1750  and  continued 
for  more  than  a  year.  The  report  of  this  investiga 
tion  is  a  most  complete  statement  of  the  gradual  sub 
version  of  the  whole  constitution  by  the  assembly,  and 
its  exclusion  of  the  governor  and  council  from  all  con 
trol  over  the  administration.374 

The  movement  by  which  the  council  was  steadily 
excluded  from  the  field  of  financial  legislation  was 
not  confined  to  New  York,  but  extended  practically 
to  all  the  colonies.  Mr.  Lewis  Morris,  in  a  letter  to 

371  New  York  Colonial  Laws,  vol.  iii,  996. 

372  See  the  various  acts  providing  for  the  defense  of  the  colony,  in  New 
York  Colonial  Laws,  vol.  iii,  442,  450,  452,  528,  577,  634,  660,  700,  733. 

373  See  his  letters,  in  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  vi,  305,  307,  352. 

374  See  the  report  with  the  abstract  of  the  evidence,  in  New  York  Colonial 
Documents,  vol.  vi,  614-703. 


i66        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

Sir  Charles  Wager  in  1739,  says  that  the  assembly  of 
New  Jersey 

When  they  rais'd  any  money  by  act  have  pretended  a  right  not 
to  admit  the  council  to  amend  a  money  bill  and  the  council  on 
the  other  side  have  insisted  on  a  right  to  amend  any  bill  if 
they  thought  fit;  tho'  they  often  declin'd  doing  of  it  rather 
than  hazard  the  support  of  ye  government.875 

In  the  case  of  the  bill  disposing  of  the  interest  on  the 
money  accruing  from  the  loan  scheme,  the  council 
determined  to  amend  it  and  asked  for  a  conference. 
The  assembly  "declared  it  to  be  inconsistent  both  with 
the  interest  of  the  province  and  the  priveleges  of 
their  house  to  admit  of  any  alterations  to  be  made  in 
it."  Morris  concludes,  "the  excluding  one  of  the 
branches  of  the  legislature  I  conceived  to  be  a  matter 
of  too  dangerous  tendency  and  too  open  an  attempt 
on  the  constitution  for  me  to  let  pass  unnoticed."  The 
next  year  a  bill  granting  two  thousand  pounds  for 
transporting  troops  to  the  West  Indies  provided  that 
the  sum  should  be  disbursed  by  commissioners.  The 
council  obtained  a  conference,  but  the  assembly  would 
permit  no  alteration  in  what  they  called  a  money 
bill.376  The  assembly's  control  over  the  treasurers  in 
that  colony  was  just  as  absolute  as  it  was  in  New  York. 
Their  accounts  were  audited  by  a  joint  committee  of 

375  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  vi,  63. 

376  The  quarrel  over  land  titles,  resulting  in  the  disorders  and  riots  of 
Belcher's  administration,  furnishes  several  other  illustrations.     In  1749  the 
council  sought  to  amend  a  bill  for  the  support  of  government.     The  assembly 
resolved  that  "the  Council  had  no  right  to  amend  any  money  bill  whatever, 
and  therefore  rejected  the  said  amendments  and  sent  the  Council  a  message 
that  they  look'd  upon  the  mending  of  said  bill  to  be  a  manifest  infringement 
upon  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  House  of  Assembly  and  those  they 
represented."  —  Report  of  the  Board  on  the  state  of  New  Jersey,  June  i,  1750, 
in  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  vii,  466-528. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ADMINISTRATION         167 

the  two  houses,  but  the  majority  of  that  committee 
was  always  made  up  of  the  assembly  members.377  The 
assembly  also  used  its  powers  to  grant  money  as  a 
weapon  for  making  itself  dominant  in  executive  af 
fairs,  especially  in  all  military  operations. 

Massachusetts  exhibits  a  similar  practice.  Condi 
tions  there  can  best  be  described  by  quoting  from 
Governor  Shute's  memorial  to  the  Board  in  1723.  He 
says  that  on  his  arrival  in  the  province  in  1716  he 
found  the  house  of  representatives  possessed  of  all  the 
powers  of  the  House  of  Commons  of  Great  Britain 
and  much  greater,  as  it  had  the  power  to  select,  once 
a  year,  the  members  of  the  council.  It  also  had  the 
power  to  fix  the  salaries  of  the  governor  and  lieuten 
ant-governor,  which  it  did  every  half  year. 

By  appointing  the  salary  of  the  treasurer  every  year  they  have 
full  control  over  that  office,  which  they  often  use  to  intimidate 
the  treasurer  from  obeying  the  proper  orders  for  issuing 
money,  if  such  are  net  agreeable  to  their  views.  .  .  Not 
content  with  the  privileges  they  enjoy  by  virtue  of  their 
charter,  they  have  for  some  years  been  making  attempts  upon 
the  few  prerogatives  remaining  to  the  crown. 

The  following  are  instances :  The  house  of  represen 
tatives  tried  to  refuse  his  power  of  a  negative  in  the 
choice  of  its  speaker.  It  voted  a  public  fast,  "a  thing 
never  attempted  by  their  predecessors,"  as  "that  power 
was  vested  in  the  governors  of  that  and  all  other 
provinces  in  America."  It  adjourned  itself  and  re 
fused  to  meet  on  the  day  to  which  the  governor  pro 
rogued  it. 

377  On  this  joint  committee,  the  assembly  appointed  five  members,  three 
of  whom  constituted  a  quorum ;  the  council  appointed  three,  two  being  neces 
sary  to  act.  See:  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  xvii,  248. 


1 68        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

Tho  the  charter  as  well  as  Governor's  commission  gives 
to  the  governor  the  command  of  all  forts  in  the  province,  and 
the  power  of  building  and  demolishing  such  forts,  the  House 
voted  a  committee  to  go  down  to  Castle  William  and  take  an 
account  of  all  the  stores  there,  and  receipts  from  the  officers 
for  the  same,  without  any  application  to  me ;  and  in  the  same 
manner,  without  my  consent,  ordered  the  treasurer  to  pay  no 
more  subsistence  to  the  officers  and  soldiers  of  Fort  Mary  at 
Winter  Harbor,  and  ordered  that  all  the  stores  of  war  be  re 
moved  from  thence  to  Boston.  As  this  is  the  only  fort  that 
can  secure  the  fishing  vessels  in  the  eastern  parts,  the  inhabi 
tants  to  the  number  of  one  hundred  and  thirty-two  petitioned 
them  to  desist  from  the  dismantling;  which  they  did,  and 
ordered  the  fort  to  be  supported.  The  people  are  thus  taught 
to  address  themselves  to  the  Assembly,  whereas  they  should 
appeal  to  the  Commander.  .  .  The  House  voted  to  sus 
pend  Mr.  Moody,  a  major  in  the  forces  there,  and  that  with 
out  being  paid,  and  sent  their  vote  to  the  council  for  concur 
rence;  the  council  not  concurring  they  ordered  his  pay  to  be 
discontinued;  when  I  expostulated,  they  sent  me  a  message 
justifying  their  proceedings  in  terms  not  usually  used  in  ad 
dressing  the  Governor. 

The  House  of  Representatives  order'd  a  committee  to  com 
mand  the  officers  at  the  eastern  and  western  parts  of  the 
province,  to  draw  out  their  forces  and  muster  there;  only 
under  colour  of  an  order  sign'd  by  their  speaker  . 
[and  the  house]  has  been  so  far  from  returning  to  a  just  sense 
of  their  duty  —  that  they  have,  since  my  departure  from  the 
province  —  repeated  this  unprecedented  attempt,  by  pretending 
to  the  power  of  drawing  off  the  forces  from  the  place  where 
they  were.  .  .  [And  in  the  last  session  Governor  Shute 
had  received  no  salary  at  all  because  of  his  attempts]  to  pre 
vent  encroachments  upon  the  Royal  Prerogative.378 

Although  the  Massachusetts  council  was  much 
more  dependent  upon  the  assembly,  because  of  the 
manner  of  its  selection,  than  that  of  the  other  royal 

878  C.O.  5,  915,  p.  366  et  seq. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ADMINISTRATION         169 

provinces,  the  popular  house  showed  the  same  jeal 
ousy  of  its  control  over  finance.  While  the  council 
not  infrequently  managed  to  secure  changes  in  a  rev 
enue  or  appropriation  bill,  the  control  of  accounts 
was  in  the  hands  of  the  house  of  representatives.  Gov 
ernor  Belcher  in  1732  shows  his  appreciation  of  the 
danger  involved  in  the  practice. 

If  every  account  of  the  province  must  be  subjected  to  a  House 
of  Representatives,  the  king's  governor  will  be  of  very  little 
signification.  They  that  have  the  controul  of  the  money  will 
certainly  have  the  power ;  and  I  take  the  single  question  on  this 
head  to  be,  whether  the  king  shall  appoint  his  own  governor, 
or  whether  the  House  of  Representatives  shall  be  governor  of 
the  Province.379 

His  warning  bore  no  fruit  and  the  lower  house  con 
tinued  its  encroachments.  No  branch  of  executive 
authority  escaped,  and  in  time  of  war  the  control  and 
payment  of  the  forces  was  directed  by  the  agents  of 
the  House  of  Representatives  instead  of  by  the  gov 
ernor.380 

In  Maryland  there  was  a  permanent  revenue  suf 
ficient  for  the  ordinary  charges  of  government,  but 
wholly  inadequate  in  time  of  war.  There,  as  else 
where,  the  council  could  refuse  but  was  unable  to 
amend  a  money  bill.  The  colony  was  unable  to  play 
any  important  part  in  the  French  and  Indian  War 
because  of  the  disputes  between  the  council  and  the 
assembly.381  The  former  could  not  accept  the  bill  as 
offered,  and  the  latter  would  permit  no  change.382 

379  Belcher  Papers,  vol.  i,  227. 

380  Massachusetts  Acts  and  Resolves,  vol.  iv,  95-96 ;  Hutchinson,  Thomas. 
History  of  the  Province  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  vol.  iii,  66;   Greene,  Evarts 
B.  Provincial  Governor,  189-190. 

381  See  Sharpe's  Correspondence,  vols.  i,  ii,  iii,  passim. 

382  In  a  letter  of  April  25,  1762,  to  Secretary  Egremont,  Sharpe,  in  speak- 


170        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

Governor  Sharpe  in  a  letter  to  Calvert  in  1756  says: 
"It  would  be  thought  a  little  irregular  for  the  Upper 
House  to  offer  amendments  to  a  money  bill."  38S  This 
remark  shows  it  was  a  well  recognized  custom  of  the 
constitution  to  leave  financial  affairs  to  the  exclusive 
control  of  the  assembly. 

The  Pennsylvania  council  had  very  doubtful  legis 
lative  powers;  and  although  it  acted  in  a  very  similar 
capacity  to  the  councils  of  the  other  colonies,  the  as 
sembly  never  recognized  it  as  a  coordinate  branch  of 
the  legislature.384  It  is  not  surprising  that  it  was  ex 
cluded  from  all  control  over  financial  affairs ;  yet  F.  J. 
Paris  says,  "The  assembly  taking  upon  themselves, 
solely,  to  grant,  apply  issue,  and  pay  the  money,  is 
very  irregular."  385 

In  1755  the  assembly  did  something  still  more  ir 
regular,  for  on  a  resolve,  without  the  knowledge  or 
consent  of  the  governor,  it  authorized  a  committee  of 
its  own  members  to  borrow  any  sum  up  to  five  thou 
sand  pounds  on  the  credit  of  the  house.388  Two  months 
later  when  Governor  Morris  vetoed  a  bill  creating 

ing  of  the  failure  of  the  money  bill  eight  times  before  refused  by  the  upper 
house,  says  it  was  "because  in  their  opinion  it  was  calculated  to  introduce 
such  innovations  in  our  constitution  as  would  create  the  greatest  confusion 
and  disorder,  sacrifice  a  part  of  the  inhabitants  to  the  humour  of  the  rest 
and  invest  the  lower  house  of  Assembly  with  executive  powers  which  have 
been  hitherto  exercised  by  other  branches  of  our  legislature."  —  Sharpe's 
Correspondence,  vol.  iii,  47. 

383  —  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  419. 

384  See:  Shepherd,  Wm.  Proprietary  Government  in  Pennsylvania,  part  ii, 
chaps,  iv,  v. 

385  Letter  to  R.  Peters,  in  Pennsylvania  Archives,  first  series,  vol.  i,  628. 

386  Letter  of  Governor  Morris  to  Secretary  Robinson,  January  30,  1755. 
He  concludes,  "if  a  house  of  assembly  by  their  own  authority,  without  the 
consent  or  approbation  of  a  governor,  can  borrow  and  dispose  of  money  as 
they  think  proper,  they  may  hereafter  use  that  power  in  a  manner  inconsistent 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ADMINISTRATION         171 

twenty-five  thousand  pounds  in  bills  of  credit,  the 
house,  on  its  own  responsibility,  and  again  without 
consulting  the  governor,  issued  notes  of  credit  to  the 
extent  of  ten  thousand  pounds.387  In  the  face  of  such 
action  any  attempt  to  thwart  the  power  of  the  assem 
bly  was  vain.  Yet  it  was  but  the  logical  step  in  such 
a  case,  and  the  other  assemblies  might  just  as  appro 
priately  have  taken  similar  action.  It  only  remained 
for  the  Pennsylvania  assembly  deliberately  to  cor 
rupt  the  governor,  which  it  did  most  successfully,  and 
in  that  way  secured  whatever  laws  it  desired.388 

In  North  Carolina  the  power  of  the  lower  house 
over  revenue  had  developed  under  the  proprietary 
government,  and  the  crown  acquired  that  difficulty 
by  purchase,  along  with  the  other  proprietary  rights. 
The  treasurer  was  an  appointee  of  the  assembly  and 
was  responsible  to  that  body.389  The  council  was  rep 
resented  on  a  joint  committee,  similar  to  that  in  New 
Jersey,  but  the  members  from  that  house  had  no  real 

with  the  publick  good,  and  the  just  dependence  of  this  province  upon  the 
crown."  —  Pennsylvania  Archives,  first  series,  vol.  ii,  250. 

387  Morris  to  Robinson,  April  9,   1755,  in  Pennsylvania  Archives,  first 
series,  vol.  ii,  284. 

388  Governor  Denny  like  all  governors  was  under  bond  to  observe  his 
instructions.     He  signed  the  law  taxing  the  proprietary  estates  on  condition 
that  the  assembly  indemnify  him  for  his  bond,  which  would  thereby  become 
forfeited.     See:  Shepherd,  Wm.  Proprietary  Government  in  Pennsylvania, 
456-461 ;  Sharpe's  Correspondence,  vol.  ii,  178,  344,  351. 

389  Edward  Mosley,  who  was  for  so  long  a  time  treasurer  and  speaker 
of  the  assembly,  says  in  a  letter  to  Governor  Burrington,  April  13,   1733: 
"To  the  best  of  my  remembrance  for  upwards  of  twenty-eight  years  I  have 
been  concerned  in  the  publick  affairs  of  this  province.     The  constant  prac 
tice  has  been  for  the  assembly  to  appoint  the  treasurers  and  gatherers  of 
money  raised  by  the  assembly.     And  this  was  always  the  practice  before  as 
far  as  I  can  learn  by  those  journals  and  acts  of  assembly  which  I  have  seen 
nor  do  I   remember  to  have  met  with  any  precedents  to  the  contrary."  — 
North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  vol.  iii,  490. 


172        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

voice  in  auditing  the  accounts.390  The  council  was 
also  denied  the  right  to  amend  money  bills,  and 
money  was  issued  on  the  letter  of  the  speaker,  even 
after  the  governor  had  refused  his  warrant. 

South  Carolina  offers  little  that  is  new,  as  the  as 
sembly  there  was  practically  supreme.  By  a  law  of 
1721,  which  was  apparently  never  disallowed,  prac 
tically  all  officers  were  to  be  appointed  by  the  lower 
house,391  which  made  the  constitution  very  little  dif 
ferent  from  that  of  Massachusetts.  South  Carolina^ 
developed  the  committee  system  to  the  fullest  extent; 
if  there  were  forts  to  be  built,  troops  to  be  raised,  pro 
visions  to  be  bought,  Indians  to  be  treated  with,  or 
any  other  ordinary  executive  act  to  be  performed, 
commissioners  were  appointed  for  the  purpose.  This 
left  comparatively  little  for  the  council  and  the  gov 
ernor  to  do. 

So  wide  spread  in  fact  was  the  tendency  of  the  as- 

/semblies  to  assume  new  powers  and  to  usurp  the  ex 
ecutive  functions  of  government,  that  the  Board  of 
Trade,  in  1730,  sought  to  check  it  by  instructions  to 
the  governors.  In  those  issued  to  Governor  Burring- 
ton  of  North  Carolina  the  fourteenth  clause  was  as 
follows : 

390  The  assembly  "receive  the  accounts  from  the  treasurers  and  pretend 
to  keep  all  the  vouchers  which  the  assembly  pass  or  reject  at  their  pleasure, 
I  may  say  exclusive  of  the  council  which  they  do  by  the  majority  of  the 
voices  of  a  joint  committee  from  the  two  houses  which  generally  consists  of 
two  members  of  the  council   and  six  or  eight  of  the  lower  house  in  two 
separate   committees  of  claims   and   accounts  and  tho  the  members  of  the 
council  should  dissent  they  are  outvoted  and  the  report  is  made  by  the  ma 
jority  and  agreed  to  by  the  Assembly."  —  Letter  of  Governor  Dobbs  to  the 
Board   of  Trade,    December,    1761,    in    North   Carolina    Colonial  Records, 
vol.  vi,  619. 

391  South  Carolina  Statutes  at  Large. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ADMINISTRATION        173 

And  whereas  the  members  of  several  assemblies  in  the  planta 
tions  have  frequently  assumed  to  themselves  privileges  no  way 
belonging  to  them  especially  of  being  protected  from  suits  at 
law  during  the  term  they  remain  of  the  assembly  . 
and  some  have  presumed  to  adjourn  themselves  at  pleasure 
without  leave  from  our  governor  first  obtained  and  others  have 
taken  upon  them  the  sole  framing  of  money  bills  refusing  to 
let  the  Council  alter  or  amend  the  same  all  which  are  very 
detrimental  to  our  prerogative.  If  upon  your  calling  an 
assembly  in  North  Carolina  you  find  them  insist  upon  any  of 
the  abovesaid  privileges  you  are  to  signify  to  them  that  it  is 
our  will  and  pleasure  you  do  not  allow  [them  any  unusual 
immunity  from  arrest,  nor  permit  them  to  adjourn,  except 
from  day  to  day,  unless  by  consent  of  the  governor,  and  that] 
the  council  have  the  like  power  of  framing  money  bills  as  the 
assembly.392 

This  clause  continued  to  be  inserted  in  the  instruc 
tions  to  the  governors  of  North  Carolina,  but  as  has 
been  shown,  was  powerless  to  accomplish  its  purpose. 
It  is  not  the  purpose  of  this  monograph  to  describe 
in  detail  the  extent  to  which  the  assembly  had  ac 
quired  control  of  affairs.  It  is  only  intended  to  point 
out  the  actual  change  in  the  colonial  constitutions  in 
half  a  century,  by  which  the  center  of  gravity  of  colo 
nial  administration  had  been  shifted  from  England 
to  America.  The  Board  of  Trade  had  exercised  what 
authority  it  could  by  directions  given  to  the  governors 
and  by  controlling  them,  their  councils,  and  the  chief 
law  officers.  The  assemblies  had  usurped  the  chief 
functions  of  the  first  two,  and  had  made  the  last  de 
pendent  upon  the  popular  house  for  their  salaries.393 

392  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  vol.  iii,  93-94. 

393  The  attempt  was  made  to  use  the  power  over  salaries  to  regulate  the 
form  of  the  judges'  commissions.     See:  Cadwallader  Golden  papers,  in  New 
York  Historical  Society,  Collections,  vol.  ix,  159  and  passim]  New  Jersey 


174        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

The  change  had  lifted  into  power  a  body  of  men  who 
were  able  to  put  forth  the  entire  power  of  the  prov 
ince  and  over  whom  the  Board  could  exercise  no 
efficient  control. 

The  far  reaching  effect  of  the  actual  change  which 
had  taken  place  can  hardly  be  exaggerated.  Gov 
ernment  rests  ultimately  upon  force,  and  that  no  long 
er  remained  in  the  hands  of  British  officials.  As 
long  as  the  governor  and  council  had  control  of  ex 
penditures,  it  was  possible  to  exert  force  when  neces 
sary,  but  the  absence  or  money  paralyzed  all  efforts 
which  were  not  supported  by  the  lower  house.  The 
trade  laws  could  not  be  enforced  because  there  was 
no  fund  to  employ  attorneys  to  prosecute  offenders. 
Officers  refused  or  neglected  to  make  reports  to  the 
governor,  because  they  were  not  responsible  to  him.394 
Riots  and  insults  to  the  executive  could  not  be  sup 
pressed  or  prevented  for  lack  of  money  to  pay  a  mili 
tary  force.395  There  could  be  no  secret  service,  no 
central  police,  no  standing  military  force.  The  mi 
litia  was  practically  useless  on  account  of  lack  of 
munitions  and  supplies  or  funds  to  purchase  them,398 
consequently  the  frontiers  could  not  be  protected  in 
an  emergency. 

Archives,  vol.  ix,  346-347,  348-349,  350,  360,  364;  North  Carolina  Colonial 
Records,  vol.  vi,  900;  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  vii,  470,  483, 
503,  505,  527- 

394  See  the  letters  of  the  governors  in  answer  to  requests  from  the  Board 
of  Trade  for  information,  in  the  colonial  records  of  New  York,  New  Jersey, 
and  North  Carolina. 

395  See  the  riots  in  New  Jersey,  cited  in  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  vii, 
passim. 

396  See  the  letters  of  Governor  Clinton  of  New  York  for  a  description 
of  the  method  of  keeping  the  supplies  of  munitions  in  its  own  hands  and  its 
practice  of  selling  any  surplus  of  gunpowder,  in  New  York  Colonial  Docu 
ments,  vol.  vi,  passim. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ADMINISTRATION         175 

The  governors  were  also  powerless  to  carry  out  the 
Indian  policy  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  which  would 
have  required  some  kind  of  police  to  protect  the  In 
dians  against  illegal  traders  and  unscrupulous  adven 
turers.  A  force  was  necessary  to  protect  the  whites 
^against  violence  and  compel  the  Indians  to  observe 
their  treaties.  Attorneys  and  courts  would  also  have 
been  required  to  prevent  the  whites  from  encroaching 
upon  the  Indian  lands,  and  for  breaking  illegally  ac 
quired  titles.397  Almost  every  policy  which  the  Board 
attempted  to  carry  out  under  the  efficient  administra 
tion  of  Halifax -and  the  Board  was  efficient  at  that 
time  -  failed,  because  the  officers  in  America  had  sur 
rendered  their  control  of  financial  affairs.  The  fact 
was  the  colonies  had  secured  the  power  to  govern 
themselves  so  far  as  internal  matters  were  concerned. 
_Jlt  has  been  said  that  Grenville  lost  the  American 
colonies  because  he  read  the  dispatches,398  which  im 
plies  that  before  his  administration  the  dispatches 
were  not  read.  That  is  far  from  the  truth,  as  Halifax 
knew  the  real  situation  in  America  in  1750,  and  was 
thoroughly  in  earnest  about  checking  the  movement.399 
Although  it  cannot  be  shown  that  the  extensions  of 
authority  given  to  the  Board  were  due  to  the  needs 
of  a  more  vigorous  administrative  policy  in  the  plan 
tations,  nevertheless  that  change  marks  the  beginning 
of  what  may  well  be  termed  a  fighting  ministry,  so 

397  See  chapter  vi  for  details  of  the  Indian  policy  of  the  Board  of  Trade. 

398  Quoted  by  Egerton  in  his  History  of  British  Colonial  Policy,  179. 

399  See  the  letter  of  F.  J.  Paris  to  James  Alexander,  July  4,  1748,  for  an 
account  of  the  keen  interest  taken  by  Halifax  in  New  Jersey  affairs,  in  New 
Jersey  Archives,  vol.  vii,  295.     See  also  the  numerous  representations  of  the 
Board  to  the  king,  Ibid.,  vols.  viii,  ix,  passim ;  New  York  Colonial  Docu 
ments,  vols.  vi,  vii,  passim. 


176        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

far  as  the  colonies  were  concerned.     The  governors 
were  given  new  and  explicit  orders  to  observe  their 
instructions  in  all  respects.400  Governor  Osborn  was 
directed  particularly  to  allow  no  more  money  bills 
to  pass  in  the  irregular  form  which  had  become  cus-    , 
tomary.y  The  years  1752  and  1753  are  years  of  resist-^ 
ance  by  the  royal  governors;401  appropriation  bills 
which  were  not  drawn  in  the  form  required  by  the 
instructions  were  rejected  by  the  councils,  and  the 
Board  commended  their  actions.402 

The  Board  also  attacked  the  practice  of  annual 
grants  and  pointed  out  their  dangers.  Although  the 
assembly  of  New  York  had  disavowed  any  intention 
of  usurping  the  government,  the  Board  feared  it  had 
no  intention  of  abandoning  its  former  pretensions. 
For 

These  annual  grants  may  be  employed  annually  to  the  pur 
poses  of  wresting  from  the  crown  the  nomination  of  all  officers 
whose  salaries  depend  upon  the  annual  appointment  of  the 
assembly  and  of  annually  disappointing  all  such  services  of 
government  as  may  be  necessary  even  to  the  very  existence  of 
the  colony,  which  are  not  entrusted  even  in  their  execution  to 
such  persons  as  the  assembly  appoints  under  the  pretense  of  re 
ceiving  and  applying  these  annual  grants.403 

T  The  outbreak  of    the  French    and    Indian    War 

/Drought  the  plans  for  resistance  to  the  claims  of  the 

I  assemblies  to  naught.     The  governors  were  forced 

to  accept  money  on  the  terms  offered  by  the  assem- 

400  General  instructions  of  1752,  in  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol. 
vi,  760. 

401  Letters  of  Governors  Clinton  and  De  Lancey  to  the  Board,  in  New 
York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  vi,  passim. 

402  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  vii,  365-368;  vol.  viii,  part  i,  31  et  seq. 

403  Letter  of  the  Board  of  Trade  to  Lieutenant-governor  De  Lancey,  in 
New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  vi,  847. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ADMINISTRATION         177 

blies,  and  did  not  dare  endanger  the  success  of  the 
English  arms  by  entering  upon  a  prolonged  struggle 
with  that  body.  The  Board  of  Trade  also  realized 
this  necessity  and  instructed  Governor  Hardy  of  New 
York  not  to  press  the  question  of  a  permanent  reve 
nue,404  but  at  the  same  time  it  by  no  means  counte 
nanced  continued  encroachments  upon  the  preroga 
tive.  Governor  Bernard  of  New  Jersey  received  the 
following  warning  on  this  point  : 

By  the  nature  and  form  of  the  laws  pass'd  in  New  Jersey, 
all  those  powers  and  prerogatives  of  the  crown  on  the  one 
hand  and  the  security  to  the  rights  and  properties  of  the  sub 
ject  on  the  other,  are  set  aside.  Commissioners  are  appointed 
for  carrying  into  execution,  independent  of  the  governor,  all 
the  purposes  of  the  acts.  The  treasurers  are  authoriz'd  and 
directed  to  issue  into  their  hands  whatever  sums  they  shall 
require,  without  the  warrant  or  interposition  of  the  governor, 
and  those  commissioners  and  other  officers  are  made  account 
able  to  the  assembly  only.  .  .  Such  proceedings  as  these, 
must,  in  the  end  terminate  in  a  total  disarrangement  of  gov 
ernment.405 

Other  colonies  were  offending  in  the  same  way. 
Only  a  few  months  before  the  letter  just  quoted,  the 
Board  called  the  attention  of  Governor  Pownall  to 
irregularities  in  the  Massachusetts  laws. 

The    facts    resulting    from    an    examination    into    the    acts 


Board  instructed  him  that  in  the  "present  situation  of  affairs, 
when  peace  and  unanimity  and  a  good  understanding  between  his  governor 
and  the  people,  are  so  absolutely  necessary  for  the  good  of  the  service,  to 
direct  that  you  should  not  press  the  establishment  of  a  perpetual  revenue  for 
the  present,  and  to  allow  and  permit  you  to  assent  to  such  temporary  bills 
as  the  Assembly  shall,  from  time  to  time  form  and  pass  for  the  support  of 
government."  -  Board  to  Hardy,  March  4,  1756,  in  New  York  Colonial 
Documents,  vol.  vii,  40. 

405  Board  of  Trade  to  Francis  Bernard,  February  8,  1759,  in  New  Jersey 
Archives,  vol.  ix,  155. 


178        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

and  proceedings  of  the  Council  and  House  of  Representa 
tives  ...  are  such  as  convince  us  that  the  dependence 
which  by  the  constitution  the  colony  ought  to  have  upon  the 
executive  part  of  the  government  of  the  mother  country  and 
the  sovereignty  of  the  crown  stands  upon  a  very  precarious 
foot  and  that  unless  some  effectual  remedy  is  at  a  proper  time 
applied,  it  will  be  in  great  danger  of  being  totally  set  aside. 

From  these  facts  it  appears  that  almost  every  act  of  execu 
tive  and  legislative  power,  whether  it  be  political,  judicial,  or 
military  is  ordered  and  directed  by  votes  and  resolves  of  the 
general  court,  in  most  cases  originating  in  the  House  of  Rep 
resentatives  to  which  all  applications,  petitions  and  representa 
tions  are  addressed  and  where  the  resolves  are  drawn  up  and 
prepared,  and  tho'  we  apprehend  that  such  resolves  are  insuf 
ficient  and  invalid,  without  the  concurrence  of  the  Council  in 
the  first  instance  and  ultimately  that  of  the  governor,  yet  such 
concurrence  seems  to  be  rather  matter  of  form  in  proceeding 
than  essential  and  that  the  measure  whatever  it  be  derives  its 
effect  and  operation  from  the  judgment  and  sense  of  the 
House  of  Representatives.406 

On  account  of  the  exigencies  of  the  military  situation, 
however,  the  Board  informed  Pownall  that  the  time 
was  not  opportune  for  correcting  the  dangerous  ten 
dencies  summarized  in  its  letter. 

Illustrations  of  similar  conditions  could  be  drawn 
from  the  other  colonies,407  but  enough  have  been  cited 
to  show  the  general  movement.  In  spite  of  protests 

406  Massachusetts  Acts  and  Resolves,  vol.  iv,  95. 

407  "It  is  not  only  in  the  laws  for  providing  for  temporary  services,  that 
they  appear  to  deviate  from  the  principles  and  practice  established  in  this 
kingdom;  the  annual  act  for  the  support  of  government  is  equally  excep 
tionable  in  many  parts,  for  we  observe,  that  the  salaries  are  payable  to  the 
officers  by  name,  and  not  for  the  time  being,  which  has  a  direct  tendency 
to  establish  in  the  Assembly  a  negative  in  the  nomination  of  those  officers, 
and  that  the  said  act  does  of  itself  create  appointments  of  officers,  that  ought 
to  be  appointed  by  commission  from  the  governor."  —  Board  to  Governor 
Franklin,  July  13,  1764,  in  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ix,  444- 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  ADMINISTRATION         179 

from  governors  and  from  the  Board  of  Trade,  and 
in  spite  of  frequent  representations  of  the  state  of  af 
fairs  to  the  chief  ministers,  the  assemblies  steadily 
extended  their  power.  As  long  as  war  lasted  no 
remedy  could  be  applied  effectively,  and  peace  was 
looked  forward  to  eagerly,  because  of  the  opportunity 
it  would  give  for  combating  the  usurpations  of  the 
assembly  and  restoring  the  constitution  to  its  previous 
form.  This  is  shown  by  the  frequent  expressions 
found  in  letters  and  communications  of  the  governors 
and  of  the  Board  of  Trade.408  The  specific  remedy 
which  the  latter  had  to  offer  is  discussed  in  the  next 
chapter. 


408  "i  hope  by  the  blessing  of  God  we  shall  soon  after  this  campaign 
have  a  glorious  peace,  and  then  His  Majesty  will  have  no  great  demands 
upon  this  province,  which  will  prevent  the  encroachments  of  the  assembly 
upon  the  prerogative."  —  Governor  Dobbs  to  the  Board,  May  18,  1759,  in 
North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  vol.  vi,  33. 


IV.  THE  IMPERIALISTIC  POLICY  OF  THE 
BOARD  OF  TRADE 

In  the  maze  of  administrative  details  of  colonial 
government  there  were  the  larger  questions  of  the 
relations  of  the  colonies  to  the  empire.  Throughout 
its  history  the  Board  of  Trade  displayed  remarkable 
consistency  in  dealing  with  these  questions.  Unaf 
fected  by  changing  ministries,  and  in  spite  of  its  vary 
ing  personnel  and  its  lack  of  responsibility  for  long 
periods  of  time,  the  Board  held  tenaciously  to  certain 
principles  of  imperial  government.  It  sought  to  pre 
serve  the  dependence  of  the  colonies  upon  the  home 
government  by  retaining  control  of  the  executive  and 
the  judiciary  and  by  making  the  colonies  conform  to 
one  administrative  type  of  government.  Closely  con 
nected  with  these  schemes  were  its  plans  for  protect 
ing  the  colonies  by  the  creation  of  a  central  military 
government  in  America,  which  could  be  used  to  main 
tain  order  and  to  protect  the  frontiers. 

The  question  of  a  fixed  civil  list  - 

Early  in  its  history  the  Board  realized  that  im 
perial  interests  required  the  establishment  of  a  fixed 
civil  list  in  each  colony.  The  question  was  not  prom 
inent  when  the  Board  was  organized,  but  soon  became 
so  by  conditions  which  developed  in  New  York, 
where  unusual  expenditures  were  required  for  de 
fense.  The  main  source  of  income  for  a  colonial 


182        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

government  was  the  revenue  derived  from  the  import 
and  excise  duties.  These  were  granted  to  the  crown 
for  terms  of  years,  were  lodged  with  the  receiver-gen 
eral,  and  could  be  expended  only  on  warrants  issued 
by  the  governor  in  council.409  So  long  as  such  an  ar 
rangement  existed,  there  was  no  necessity  for  a  per 
manent  law,  nor  could  the  payment  of  official  salaries 
by  a  grant  of  Parliament  have  made  the  governor 
more  independent,  since  all  control  of  expenditures 
was  vested  in  the  hands  of  the  direct  appointees  of  the 
crown,  who  were  responsible  only  to  the  British  gov 
ernment  for  their  actions.  Under  such  conditions 
there  was  no  anomaly  in  the  Board  instructing  the 
governor  what  salary  he  and  the  other  officers  should 
receive,  nor  in  specifying  exactly  what  sums  each 
colony  should  contribute  to  the  common  defense  in 
time  of  war.410 

The  revenue  act  in  New  York,  which  had  been  con 
tinued  from  1691  to  1709,  had  never  yielded  much 
more  than  enough  to  pay  the  immediate  expenses  of 
the  civil  establishment.411  The  encroachments  upon 
the  authority  of  the  governor  and  council,  through 
the  power  of  the  assembly  to  control  the  unusual  ex 
penditures  caused  by  the  war,  had  roused  the  Board  to 

409  See  the   acts  of  1692,    1699,   1702.     These   granted   the   revenue   in 
periods  of  six  or  three  years.     That  of  1699  did  not  expire  till  May,  1706, 
yet  it  was  continued  by  the  act  of  1702  until  1709.     See:  New  York  Colonial 
Laws,  vol.  i,  287,  419,  517;   New  York  Colonial  Documents,   vol.  v,  in, 
545-547.     Cf.  Spencer's  Phases  of  Royal  Government  in  New  York,  100-107. 

410  Had  the  revenue  acts  been  permanent  and  all  expenditures  remained 
at  the  option  of  the  governor  and  council,  Hunter's  instructions  would  have 
been   a  proper   means  for  securing  the  cooperation  of  the  other  colonies. 
See:  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  v,  138-139. 

411  Report  of  Bellomont,  in  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iv,  319, 
538,  602,  721.     Cf.  Spencer's  Phases  of  Royal  Government  in  New  York, 
100-106. 


IMPERIALISTIC  POLICY  OF  THE  BOARD      183 

a  full  realization  of  the  danger  involved.412  The  rem 
edy  was  simple  enough.  If  a  permanent  revenue 
could  be  established,  the  assembly  would  no  longer 
have  the  means  of  extending  its  authority,  consequent 
ly  Hunter  was  instructed  to  insist  upon  an  act  for 
establishing  such  a  revenue.413 

Hunter  arrived  in  New  York  in  June,  1710,  with 
this  instruction  and  at  the  first  session  of  the  assembly 
endeavored  to  secure  a  law  in  accordance  with  it.  In 
spite  of  all  the  influence  he  could  exert,  however,  the 
assembly  would  neither  provide  a  permanent  revenue 
nor  enact  such  a  temporary  law  as  he  was  permitted 
to  accept.  He  reported  the  refusal  of  the  assembly 
to  conform  to  his  instructions;414  whereupon  the 
Board  at  once  took  up  the  matter  and  in  a  represen 
tation  to  the  queen  recommended  that  a  standing 
revenue  for  the  government  of  New  York  should  be 
established  by  act  of  Parliament.415  The  recommenda 
tion  met  with  the  approval  of  the  ministry,  and  the 
Board  was  instructed  to  draw  up  heads  of  a  bill  for 
that  purpose,418  but  for  some  reason  the  bill  was  never 
presented  to  either  house.417 

412  See  the  letters  of  the  Board  to  Cornbury  and  its  representations  to 
the  king,  in  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iv,  passim. 

413  His  instructions,  clause  34,  provided,  "that  all  laws  whatsoever,  for 
the  good  government  and  support  of  the  said  province  be  made  indefinite 
and  without  limitation  of  time,  except  the  same  be   for  a  temporary  end, 
and  which  shall  expire  and  have  its  full  effect  within  a  certain  time."  - 
New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  v,  129. 

414  Hunter   to  the   Board,   in    New   York    Colonial  Documents,   vol.   v, 
177,  183. 

415  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  v,  190-193. 

416  Order  in  Council,  March  i,  1711,  in  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  22,  pp. 
254-255.     There  is  a  copy  of  the  proposed  law  in  British  Museum  Addi 
tional  Manuscripts,  33028,  ff.  23-31. 

417  Hunter  to  the  Earl  of  Stair,  October  18,  1714,  in  New  York  Colonial 


1 84        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 
/ 

In  the  meantime  Hunter  was  encouraged  by  the 

Board  to  persist  in  his  struggle  for  a  permanent  set 
tlement  and  assured  that  it  did  not  doubt  "but  proper 
measures  will  be  taken  here  for  fixing  that  matter  for 
the  future."  418  Soon  after  Parliament  assembled  in 
the  following  autumn  another  representation  was  laid 
before  the  queen,  which  gave  a  very  succinct  state 
ment  of  the  conditions  in  New  York  and  the  danger 
ous  example  it  was  setting  for  other  colonies.  "And 
we  having  reason  to  believe  from  their  proceedings 
that  they  are  not  likely  to  settle  such  a  revenue,  we 
humbly  offer  that  provision  be  made  in  Parliament 
here  for  that  purpose."  419 

This  representation  failed  to  accomplish  its  pur 
pose,  as  did  a  similar  one  some  months  later.  No  bill 
was  brought  in,  though  the  Board  continued  to  en 
courage  Hunter  with  promises  of  support.  April  i, 
1713,  the  whole  matter,  with  a  draft  of  a  bill  for  a 
permanent  revenue,  was  laid  before  Dartmouth  who, 
from  his  long  connection  with  the  Board,  must  have 
been  familiar  with  the  condition  of  affairs  in  the  col 
onies.420  He  approved  the  bill  and  directed  the  Board 
to  lay  it  before  Parliament,  but  the  session  was  so  far 
advanced  that  nothing  was  done.421  The  Board,  how- 

Documents,  vol.  v,  451-453.  The  Board  wrote  Hunter  that  the  bill  could 
not  be  presented  on  account  of  the  early  rising  of  Parliament. 

418  Board  of  Trade  to  Hunter,  November  13,  1711,  in  New  York  Colonial 
Documents,  vol.  v,  285. 

419  Representation  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  in  New  York  Colonial  Docu 
ments,  vol.  v,  288. 

420  Board  of  Trade  to  Dartmouth,  in  New  York  Colonial  Documents, 
vol.   v,   359.     Cf.   Spencer's   Phases   of  Royal   Government  in  New   York, 

137-139. 

421  Board  to  Hunter,  July  20,  1713,  in  New  York  Colonial  Documents, 
vol.  v,  367. 


IMPERIALISTIC  POLICY  OF  THE  BOARD      185 

ever,  promised  Hunter  that  the  matter  would  be 
pushed  at  the  next  session.422 

In  the  meantime  Hunter  had  despaired  of  securing 
any  help  from  England  and  had  been  forced  to  make 
the  best  terms  he  could  with  his  assembly.  Early  in 
1715  he  secured  a  settlement  for  five  years,  and  the 
Board  said  no  more  about  the  bill.  It  is  doubtful  if 
there  was  any  intention  of  enacting  the  legislation 
thus  constantly  demanded  by  the  Board  for  five  years, 
and  even  Hunter's  friends  appear  to  have  questioned 
the  expediency  of  the  measure,  since  a  permanent 
revenue  might  have  meant  his  own  recall.423  The 
Board  of  Trade,  however,  was  not  disposed  to  aban 
don  its  demands  and  the  instructions  to  Hunter  were 
renewed  to  his  successors,  but  with  no  better  results. 

Instructions  similar  to  those  of  the  governor  of 
New  York  had  been  given  to  the  governor  of  Massa 
chusetts,  but  the  issue  was  not  fought  out  there  until 
the  arrival  of  Governor  Burnet.  His  instructions, 
which  had  originally  been  prepared  for  Governor 
Shute,  required  the  assembly  to  establish  a  fixed  sal 
ary  of  at  least  one  thousand  pounds  per  annum  on 

422  "You  may  be  assured  that  now  we  have  Her  Majesty's  commands  as 
aforesaid,  we  shall  not  fail  at  ye  beginning  of  the  next  Parliament,  to  take 
all  the  care  possible  that  Her  Majesty's  commands  for  the  future  be  no 
more  slighted  by  a  people  who  owe  their  whole  protection  to  Her  Majesty's 
goodness."  —  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  v,  367. 

423  "Meanwhile  I  was  left  to  beg  my  daily  bread  from  a  hard  hearted 
Assembly  here,  tho'  Her   Majesty,  upon   a  representation  from  the  Lords 
of  trade  of  the  state  and  behaviour  of  this  province  had  ordered  a  bill  to 
be  drawn  and  laid  before  ye  Parliament  for  settling  the  revenue  here  during 
her  life,  which  was  accordingly  drawn  but  never  presented  to  either  house. 
Some  of  my  friends  wrote  me  word  that  they  thought  it  was  better  for  me 
it  should  not  pass,  because  if  there  was  a  revenue  settled  I  might  depend  on 
being  superseded."  -  Hunter  to  the  Earl  of  Stair,  October  18,  1714,  in  New 
York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  v,  451. 


1 86        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

threat  of  action  by  Parliament.424  The  assembly  re 
fused  to  comply,  and  a  bitter  controversy  ensued.  Fi 
nally  the  matter  was  taken  up  by  the  Board,  which 
sustained  the  governor  and,  in  a  representation  to  the 
Privy  Council,  asked  that  the  matter  be  laid  before 
Parliament. 

The  action  of  the  Board  was  approved  by  the  min 
istry,  and  the  impression  given  out  that  action  by 
Parliament  was  imminent;  but  it  seems  more  than 
probable  that  Newcastle  had  no  intention  whatever 
of  resorting  to  such  drastic  methods,  and  that  the 
threat  was  little  more  than  an  attempt  to  frighten 
Massachusetts  into  doing  what  the  Board  demanded. 
There  is  even  evidence  to  indicate  that  he  saw  the 
bluff  would  fail,  and  that  the  action  which  was  finally 
taken  was  in  the  direction  of  "saving  the  face"  of  the 
administration.425 

The  premature  death  of  Burnet  left  the  matter  to 
be  settled  by  his  successor,  Jonathan  Belcher,  who 
arrived  in  Boston  in  August,  1730,  with  even  more 

424  Instructions  of  March  20,  1728,  in  C.O.  5,  916;  Massachusetts  Acts 
and  Resolves,  vol.  ii,  632;  Palfrey's  History  of  New  England,  vol.  iv,  50; 
Greene's  Provincial  Governor,  171-172;  Hutchinson's  History  of  Massachu 
setts,  vol.  i,  chap,  in;     A  collection  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  Great  and 
General  Court  or  Assembly  of  His  Majesty's  Province  of  Massachusetts 
Bay,  41. 

425  There  is  in  the  Public  Record  Office  in  London,  an  unsigned  draft  of 
a  letter  to  Burnet,  dated  June  26,  1729,  which  would  seem  to  be  from  New 
castle,  the  substance  of  which  follows: 

"By  my  other  letter  and  the  copy  of  the  Order  in  Council  inclosed  in 
it,  you  will  plainly  see  it  is  the  intention  of  the  crown,  that  the  affair  of 
settling  a  salary  on  you  should  be  laid  before  the  Parliament  at  their  first 
meeting,  as  it  undoubtedly  will,  unless  the  House  of  Representation  take 
care  to  prevent  it  in  time  by  complying  with  what  is  expected  of  them. 
[It  is  hoped  that  things  will  not  come  to  such  a  pass;  and,  as  luckily  hap 
pens,  they  have  a  long  time  to  consider  better  of  it  and  may  improve  their 


IMPERIALISTIC  POLICY  OF  THE  BOARD      187 

peremptory  instructions  than  had  previously  been 
given.  By  these  he  was  forbidden  to  accept  any  gift 
or  present  from  the  assembly  on  any  account  or  in 
any  way  whatsoever,  upon  pain  of  the  king's  highest 
displeasure,  except  under  an  act  fixing  a  permanent 
salary  of  at  least  one  thousand  pounds  sterling,  free 
from  all  deductions,  to  be  constantly  paid  out  of  such 
money  as  should,  from  time  to  time,  be  raised  for  the 
support  of  the  government.426  If  the  assembly  failed 
to  comply  with  this  instruction,  he  was  directed  either 
to  proceed  at  once  to  England  or  send  an  agent,  so 
that  the  matter  might  be  laid  before  Parliament.427 

The  assembly  offered  Belcher  his  salary  in  the  cus 
tomary  form  of  a  temporary  grant,  but  his  instruc 
tions  forbade  his  receiving  it  in  that  way.  After  con 
siderable  delay  he  secured  permission  to  accept  the 
grant,  but  was  still  directed  to  insist  upon  a  permanent 
establishment.  This  he  was  unable  to  get,  conse 
quently  the  annual  form  of  securing  special  permis- 

opportunity.]  Therefore  I  write  you  this  letter  at  His  Majesty's  command, 
so  that  you  may  try  to  bring  them  to  a  better  temper,  and  make  them  realize 
that  this  is  the  only  way  of  recommending  themselves  to  His  Majesty's  favor 
and  protection.  Tho  you  were  to  insist  upon  their  settling  the  salaries  of 
all  future  governors  as  well  as  your  own,  you  are  now  at  liberty  to  accept 
a  settlement  for  yourself  only  —  but  during  the  whole  time  of  your  govern 
ment,  Her  Majesty  depends  upon  your  skill  and  prudence  to  make  use  of 
these  hints  to  influence  the  Assembly  to  pay  due  obedience  to  His  Majesty's 
commands;  but  whatever  you  do  is  to  come  from  yourself  in  private  capacity, 
so  as  not  to  appear  like  a  new  overture  on  the  part  of  the  crown,  as  if  it 
were  not  really  intended  to  lay  the  matter  before  Parliament.  But  in  case 
of  their  voluntary  compliance  and  if  it  is  done  before  Parliament  meets,  you 
may  let  them  know  that  you  will  use  your  endeavors  to  prevent  any  Par 
liamentary  Enquiry."  —  Board  of  Trade,  America  and  West  Indies,  5,  p.  19. 

426  Massachusetts  Acts  and  Resolves,  vol.  ii,  633;  Palfrey,  John.  History 
of  New  England,  vol.  iv,  chap.  vi. 

427  Massachusetts  Acts  and  Resolves,  vol.  ii,  633;  Palfrey,  John.  History 
of  New  England,  vol.  iv,  chap.  vi. 


1 88        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

sion  to  accept  his  salary  was  gone  through  with  until 
1735,  when  the  permission  was  made  general.428 

That  the  idea  of  a  permanent  civil  list  was  no  mere 
whim  of  the  Board,  but  was  one  of  its  most  funda 
mental  policies,  is  seen  in  the  action  of  Martin  Bla- 
den,  who  according  to  Belcher,  constantly  opposed 
giving  permission  to  accept  the  temporary  grants  of 
the  Massachusetts  assembly.429  His  opposition  may 
have  been  based  upon  personal  grounds,  but  that  is 
not  the  only  possible  explanation.  No  doubt  he  would 
have  preferred  to  see  the  question  settled  once  for  all 
in  the  interests  of  the  empire,  rather  than  postponed 
from  year  to  year;  for  as  early  as  1726,  in  his  essay  on 
the  colonies,  he  advocated  a  stamp  tax  for  America, 
the  proceeds  of  which  should  go  to  establish  a  per 
manent  civil  list.  In  this  way  the  question  of  salaries 
could  be  settled  and  dangers  of  further  encroachments 
by  the  assembly  removed.430  This  proposal  was  not  ac- 

428  The  reason  given  by  the  Board  for  recommending  the  withdrawal 
of  the   former  instruction   regarding   a   fixed   salary  was   that  the   charter 
did  not  admit  of  any  such  interpretation  as  the  instruction  implied.     But  in 
recommending  that  the  clause  in  question  should  be  omitted,  the  Board  again 
pointed  out  that  it  would  be  much  better  to  fix  a  salary  on  the  governor, 
payable  out  of  some  of  the  royal  revenues  from  the  plantations,  "By  which 
the  governor  will  become  entirely  independent  of  the  people,  and  no  longer 
laid  under  any  temptation  of  giving  up  the  prerogative  of  the  crown  or 
sacrificing  the  interest  of  Great  Britain  to  any  private  advantage."  —  C.O.  5, 
917,  pp.  131-132. 

429  Letter  of  Belcher  to  Richard  Partridge,  in  Massachusetts  Historical 
Society  Collections,  sixth  series,  vol.  vi,  81-84. 

430  "All   that   has   been   said    with   respect   to   the   improvement  of   the 
plantations  will  it  is  supposed  signify  very  little  unless  a  sufficient  revenue 
can  be  raised  to  support  the  useful  expence,  in  order  to  which  it  is  humbly 
submitted   whether   the   duties   of   stamps    upon   parchment    and    paper   in 
England  may  not  with  good  reason  be  extended  by  act  of  Parliament  to  all 
the  American  Plantations."  —  Bladen's  "A   Short  Discourse  on  the  Present 
State  of  the  Colonies   in  America  with  Respect  to  the  Interest  of   Great 
Britain,  submitted  to  Secretary  Townshend,  1726,"  in  North  Carolina  Colo- 


IMPERIALISTIC  POLICY  OF  THE  BOARD      189 

cepted  by  the  chief  ministers,  but  it  shows  the  attitude 
of  the  most  active  member  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  who 
was  ready  to  resort  to  a  method  which  offered  the  only 
practical  solution  of  the  difficulty. 

What  has  been  said  concerning  a  civil  list  for  New 
York  applies  in  a  general  way  to  New  Jersey,  as  the 
instructions  to  the  governors  were  essentially  the 
same.  Those  to  Cornbury  required  the  assembly  to 
settle  forthwith  "a  constant  and  fixed  allowance  on 
you,  our  governour  and  lieutenant-governour  for  the 
time  being,  suitable  to  their  respective  characters  and 
dignity,  and  that  the  same  be  done  without  limitation 
of  time."  431  Later  he  was  especially  instructed  to  re 
quire  a  settlement  for  twenty-one  years,  and  failing  in 
that,  to  demand  that  it  be  for  not  less  than  eleven 
years.  He  was  compelled,  however,  to  accept  a  grant 
for  two  years,  and  afterwards  for  but  one  year.432 
Hunter  and  his  successors,  Montgomerie  and  Cosby, 
were  no  more  successful  in  securing  what  their  in 
structions  required. 

The  continued  failure  of  the  governors  on  this 
point  caused  the  Board  of  Trade  to  make  the  instruc 
tions  still  more  specific.  When  New  Jersey  was  sep 
arated  from  New  York  in  1738  and  Lewis  Morris 
sent  over  as  governor,  the  Board  considered  the  time 
opportune  for  securing  its  cherished  object;  there 
fore  Morris  was  given  instructions  similar  to  those 
sent  to  Governor  Burnet  of  Massachusetts. 

nial  Records,  vol.  ii,  635.  This  discourse  is  identical  with  the  one  ascribed  to 
Sir  William  Keith,  which  was  transmitted  to  the  Board,  December,  1728, 
New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  v,  214-230. 

431  Special  instructions  as  to  salary,  1702,  in  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol. 

">  537-538. 

432  —  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  69-71,  99. 


i9o        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

You  are  therefor  to  propose  unto  the  Assembly  at  their  first 
meeting,  after  your  arrival,  and  to  use  your  utmost  endeavours 
with  them  that  an  act  be  pass'd  for  raising  and  settling  a  pub- 
lick  revenue  for  defraying  the  necessary  charge  of  the  govern 
ment  of  our  said  province,  and  that  therein  provision  be  par 
ticularly  made  for  a  competant  salary,  to  yourself  as  captain 
general  and  governor-in-chief  of  our  said  province,  and  to 
other  our  succeeding  captains-general  for  supporting  the  dignity 
of  the  said  office,  as  likewise  due  provision  for  the  contingent 
charges  of  our  council  and  Assembly,  and  for  the  salaries  of 
the  respective  clerks  and  other  officers  thereunto  belonging,  as 
likewise  of  all  other  officers  necessary  for  the  administration 
of  that  government.  [The  salaries  were  to  be  a  fixed  annual 
amount  payable  in  sterling,  and  the  governor  was  forbidden 
to  accept  any  presents  or  other  remuneration  on]  pain  of  our 
highest  displeasure  and  of  being  recalled  from  that  our  gov 
ernment.433 

In  spite  of  these  peremptory  orders,  Morris  ob 
tained  a  settlement  for  only  three  years.  In  1746  the 
same  instructions  were  given  to  Belcher,  but  he  found 
himself  helpless  on  account  of  the  riots  in  the  prov 
ince,  and  was  even  less  successful  than  his  predeces 
sors  had  been.  No  action  of  importance  was  taken 
by  the  Board  until  after  the  appointment  of  Halifax 
as  president.  The  condition  of  affairs  in  New  Jer 
sey  and  New  York  had  become  so  serious  that  the 
Board  made  an  investigation  and  reported  its  findings 
with  recommendations  of  proper  remedies. 

In  its  report  on  New  Jersey,  which  appeared  in 
1750,  the  Board  pointed  out  that  the  fundamental 
weakness  of  the  government  was  the  dependence  of 
the  executive  upon  the  financial  support  of  the  assem 
bly.  In  accordance  with  its  traditional  policy,  it 

433  Instructions  to  Morris,  clause  26,  in  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  vi, 
26-27. 


IMPERIALISTIC  POLICY  OF  THE  BOARD      191 

proposed  to  make  the  governor  independent  by  grant 
ing  him  a  fixed  salary  out  of  the  British  exchequer, 
and  as  the  riots  in  the  province  would  require  the 
presence  of  some  effective  military  force,  it  proposed 
to  place  a  sufficient  number  of  regular  troops  at  his 
disposal  to  restore  order.434  The  recommendation, 
however,  was  too  radical  for  the  ministry  of  the  day 
and  no  positive  action  was  taken. 

Within  a  year  the  Board  made  its  elaborate  report 
on  New  York.  Although  the  situation  there  was  not 
complicated  with  riots,  as  was  the  case  in  New  Jersey, 
conditions  were  serious.  The  difficulty  there  was  also 
one  of  revenue,  and  the  Board  proposed  its  regular 
remedy  of  a  permanent  act,  such  as  had  been  passed 
in  Jamaica.  There  is  an  intimation  at  the  close  of  the 
report  that  the  only  means  of  securing  such  an  act 
would  be  by  action  of  the  home  government,435  which 
was  a  step  which  the  ministry  was  not  prepared  to 
take. 

Halifax  apparently  still  had  hopes  of  accomplish 
ing  the  desired  end  by  means  of  instructions,  and  in 
1752  the  governors  were  ordered  not  to  deviate  from 

434  See  the  report  of  the  Board,  June  i,  1750,  in  New  Jersey  Archives, 
vol.  vii,  466-528. 

435  In  commenting  on  the  action  of  the  last  assembly  the  report  concludes: 
"But,  my  Lords,  they  have  passed  these  Acts  of  supply  in  the  same  improper 
manner,  and  with  the  same  usurpations  on  the  prerogative,  and  liable  to 
every  objection,  which  induced  Mr.  Clinton  in  the  year  1748,  to  dissolve  the 
Assembly,  and  leave  the  province  without  support  rather  than  in  a  time  of 
peace,  give  his  consent  and  sanction  to  such  destructive  encroachments  upon 
the  legal  and  just  prerogative  of  the  crown     .     .     .     tho'  the  Assembly  have 
agreed  to  make  some  provision  for  the  charges  of  Government,  their  usurpa 
tions  on  the  prerogative  are  rather  confirmed  than  regained  by  this  last 
meeting,  and  as  great  a  necessity  as  ever  remains  for  the  councils  of  this 
kingdom  to  interpose  and  take  some  measures,  for  the  better  settlement  of 
this  most  valuable  and  divided  province."  —  New  York  Colonial  Documents^ 
vol.  vi,  638. 


192        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

them  ain  any  point,  but  upon  evident  necessity."  The 
passing  of  laws  in  a  manner  contrary  to  their  instruc 
tions  was  given  as  the  chief  cause  of  the  difficulties 
which  had  developed  in  several  colonies.  "We  must 
therefore  in  a  particular  manner  insist  that  in  the 
passing  of  all  laws  you  have  a  proper  regard  to  the 
regulations  contained  in  your  instructions." 

Clinton  was  soon  relieved  at  his  own  request,  and 
Sir  Danvers  Osborn  sent  in  his  place.  The  instruc 
tions  to  the  latter  show  the  temper  of  Halifax;  he 
was  to  charge  the  assembly  to  recede  from  the  unwar 
rantable  assumptions,  and  require  the  enactment  of  a 
permanent  revenue.437  Furthermore^  his  instructions 
would  not  have  permitted  him  to  saccept  a  temporary 
grant  of  revenue  in  any  form,438  and  the  assembly  was 
literally  to  be  forced  to  give  way.  He  was  also  di 
rected  at  once  to  remove  any  member  of  his  council 
who  should  acquiesce  in,  or  who  should  not  actively 
resist,  encroachments  from  the  assembly.  On  the 
whole  these  were  the  strictest  instructions  ever  given 
to  a  governor,  but  Osborn  did  not  live  to  carry  them 
out,  as  he  committed  suicide  soon  after  his  arrival. 
Lieutenant-governor  De  Lancey  succeeded  to  the  gov 
ernment  and  attempted  to  enforce  the  stringent  orders 
brought  over  by  his  predecessor. 

436  Circular  letter  to  the  governors,  June  3,  1752,  in  New  York  Colonial 
Documents,  vol.  vi,  760. 

437  Chalmers,  George.  Introduction  to  the  Revolt,  vol.  ii,  315. 

438  "We  must  however  beg  leave  humbly  to  represent  to  your  Excellencies 
that  it  being  doubtful  whether  by  the  words  of  the  former  instruction  His 
Majesty's  governor  was  not  tied  up  from  assenting  to  any  law  for  making 
provision  for  temporary  services  until  he  should  have  obtained  a  permanent 
revenue."     Representation  on  Hardy's  Instructions,  April  22,  1755,  in  New 
York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  vi,  948. 


IMPERIALISTIC  POLICY  OF  THE  BOARD      193 

The  outbreak  of  the  French  and  Indian  War,  how 
ever,  compelled  the  Board  to  allow  the  governors  to 
accept  revenue  bills  of  a  temporary  character.  As 
the  war  went  on,  it  became  more  and  more  necessary 
not  to  arouse  the  opposition  of  the  assemblies ;  conse 
quently  the  Board  was  compelled  to  abandon,  for  the 
time,  its  aggressive  policy.  Governor  Hardy's  in 
structions,  w^hich  were  issued  in  1755,  directed  him 
to  accept  temporary  grants  but  to  continue  to  insist 
upon  a  permanent  law.439  Even  this  point  had  to  be 
waived,  and  the  Board  finally  instructed  the  governors 
of  Massachusetts,  New  Jersey,  and  New  York  not  to 
insist  upon  a  permanent  revenue,  but  to  accept  what 
ever  financial  aid  the  assemblies  would  vote.440 

The  point  was  not  abandoned  by  the  Board  but  was 
only  waived  for  the  time  being,  for  the  general  in 
structions  remained  as  stringent  as  ever.  The  con 
tinued  military  necessities  only  postponed  the  final 
solution  of  the  question.  The  Board  had  done  all  it 
could  to  secure  a  fixed  civil  list  so  as  to  make  the 
governors  independent  of  their  local  assemblies,  but 
could  accomplish  very  little  without  the  intervention 
of  Parliament.  The  ministry  would  not  ask  for  that, 
however,  until  the  failure  of  the  Stamp  Act  convinced 
it  of  the  necessity  of  the  step.  Then  the  Board  was 
ordered  to  lay  before  Parliament  a  detailed  statement 
of  the  cost  of  the  civil  establishment  in  America,441 
but  the  measure  had  been  postponed  too  long. 

439  ]sjew  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  vi,  948,  par.  19. 

440  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  vii,  32-33 ;  Massachusetts  Acts 
and  Resolves,  vol.  iv,  95;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ix,  156. 

441  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ix,  533-534;  Journal  of  the  House  of  Com 
mons,  vol.  xxx,  484. 


194        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

In  Maryland  and  Virginia  permanent  laws  had 
been  secured,  which  provided  for  nearly  all  the 
charges  upon  the  civil  list  in  time  of  peace.  In  North 
Carolina  the  governor  and  other  officers  were  as 
signed  permanent  salaries  out  of  the  quit  rents;  but 
as  these  were  seldom  collected,  the  regular  clause 
regarding  a  fixed  revenue  was  inserted  in  the  instruc 
tions  given  to  Governor  Dobbs  in  I754.442  In  Jamaica 
the  assembly  was  finally  induced  to  yield  to  the  con 
tinued  demands  of  the  Board  of  Trade  and  enact  the 
desired  legislation.  The  crown  itself  bore  the  charges 
of  government  in  Nova  Scotia  and  in  Georgia;443 
consequently  the  struggle  over  the  civil  list  centered 
in  the  three  provinces  of  Massachusetts,  New  Jersey, 
and  New  York.  Pennsylvania  and  New  Hampshire 
should  be  included,  were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  the 
latter  occasionally  granted  the  revenue  for  a  period 
of  years,  and  in  the  former  the  proprietaries  were 
sponsors  for  the  salary  of  the  governor.  Even  then 
Penn's  government  was  objected  to  on  account  of  the 
absence  of  an  established  revenue.444 

From  the  foregoing  account  it  is  clear  that  the 
Board  realized  the  fundamental  weakness  in  the  im- 

442  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  vol.  v,  1114,  par.  24. 

443  It  is  significant  that  in  both  of  these  younger  colonies  the  Board  of 
Trade  took  no  steps  to  place  the  governors  and  other  officers  at  the  mercy  of 
the  assemblies  by  asking  the  latter  to  pay  their  salaries.     Instead,  the  neces 
sary  sums  were  annually  appropriated  by  Parliament  and  the  officials  thus 
kept  strictly  responsible  to  the  home  government.     For  reports  on  Georgia, 
see  C.O.  5,  672,  pp.  26-29,  40-41,  47,  322,  373. 

444  "I  shall  write  to  the  council  to  represent  how  it  is  taken  that  there  is 
no  settled  revenue  in  the  province  to  answer  the  exigencies  of  government, 
especially  for  a  governor,  a  judge,  and  an  attorney-general:  without  this  be 
got  in  hand  with,  I  fear  our  own  enemies  there  will  have  but  too  plausible 
a  pretence  against  us  here,  especially  in  war  time."  —  Penn  to  Logan,  June 
27,  1703,  in  Penn-Logan  Correspondence,  vol.  i,  210. 


IMPERIALISTIC  POLICY  OF  THE  BOARD      195 

perial  constitution,  and  throughout  a  period  of  sixty 
years  constantly  endeavored  to  correct  it  by  securing 
a  fixed  civil  list  in  the  colonies.  This  was  its  favorite 
policy,  and  the  one  to  which  it  adhered  in  spite  of 
changing  personnel  and  the  rise  and  fall  of  minis 
tries.  The  officers  of  the  later  colonies  of  Nova 
Scotia  and  Georgia  were  paid  by  the  crown;  and  in 
every  colony  in  which  the  government  was  supported 
by  temporary  grants  the  Board  sought  to  bring  about 
a  similar  situation  or  force  the  colonies  themselves 
to  make  the  salaries  permanent.  Jamaica,  however, 
is  the  only  colony  which  yielded. 

Control  of  the  judiciary  \^ 

The  question  of  the  control  of  the  judiciary  was 
very  closely  connected  with  that  of  a  fixed  civil  list; 
but  in  this  case  it  turned  upon  the  form  of  the  judges' 
commissions  rather  than  upon  their  salaries.  As  to 
the  tenure  which  the  judges  were  to  enjoy,  the  in 
structions  to  the  governors  during  the  earlier  years 
of  the  Board  of  Trade  were  not  clear.  They  simply 
directed  the  governors  not  to  express  "any  limita 
tion  of  time"  in  any  commissions  they  should  issue  to 
judicial  officers.445  This  was  avowedly  to  protect  the 
judges  from  arbitrary  removal  at  the  hands  of  the 
governors;  but  what  did  the  phrase,  "no  limitation  of 
time"  mean?  It  could  mean  either  during  good  be- 

445  See  the  instructions  to  Bellomont,  in  New  York  Colonial  Documents, 
vol.  iv,  286;  to  Cornbury,  in  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ii,  518-519.  The 
clause  remained  unchanged  until  1753  and  was  as  follows:  You  shall  not 
displace  any  of  the  judges,  justices,  or  other  officers  or  ministers  within  our 
said  province,  without  good  and  sufficient  cause  to  be  signified  unto  us,  and 
to  our  said  commissioners  for  trade  and  plantations;  and  to  prevent  arbitrary 
removals  of  judges  and  justices  of  the  peace,  you  shall  not  express  any 
limitation  of  time  in  the  commissions  you  are  to  grant. 


196        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

havior  or  during  the  pleasure  of  the  crown.  The 
general  practice  seems  to  have  been  to  issue  commis 
sions  at  pleasure  during  the  first  third  of  the  eight 
eenth  century,  and  the  question  did  not  become  of 
importance  to  imperial  interests  until  the  administra 
tion  of  Halifax. 

The  early  problem  of  the  Board  was  to  secure  able 
men  for  the  chief  judicial  positions  in  the  colonies,  for 
the  governors  found  themselves  seriously  handi 
capped  by  the  lack  of  efficient  and  trustworthy  men 
for  chief  justices  and  attorneys-general.  Bellomont 
of  New  York  urgently  demanded  that  such  officers 
should  be  sent  from  England.  Finally  the  Board  took 
the  matter  in  hand  and  secured  the  appointment  of 
William  Atwood  as  chief  justice  and  Sampson  Shel- 
ton  B  rough  ton  as  attorney- general.446  These  men  were 
appointed  by  request  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  after 
they  had  been  recommended  by  the  attorney-  and  the 
solicitor-general  in  England,  as  was  done  in  all  sim 
ilar  cases  of  judicial  appointments  for  the  colonies 
where  commissions  were  issued  in  England.447 

Similar  officers  were  appointed  by  the  crown  for 
the  other  colonies,448  but  in  some  cases  the  governors 
appointed  when  a  vacancy  occurred.  There  was  no 
regularity  about  the  procedure.  Thus  while  both  At 
wood  and  his  successor,  Dr.  Bridges,  were  sent  from 
England,  Cornbury  commissioned  Mompesson  as 
chief  justice  on  the  death  of  Bridges,  and  requested 

446  Letters  to  the  Board  of  Trade,  in  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol. 
iv,  667,  and  passim. 

447  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  13,  pp.  76-94. 

448  ]y[r    Stephens  Thompson  was  appointed  as  attorney-general  for  Vir 
ginia  in  1703,  on  the  request  of  Governor  Nicholson  and  the  recommendation 


IMPERIALISTIC  POLICY  OF  THE  BOARD      197 

the  Board  to  secure  his  confirmation;  but  that  body 
replied  that  he  needed  no  confirmation,  "since  by  the 
commission  given  him  by  your  Lordship  he  is  actually 
chief  justice." 449  Numerous  illustrations  could  be 
cited  of  appointments  by  governors,  and  also  many 
in  which  they  were  commissioned  in  England.450  The 
Board,  however,  does  not  appear  to  have  controlled 
the  appointments  until  after  1752,  after  which  date  it 
became  less  common  for  the  governors  to  select  them. 
In  its  representation  of  December,  1699,  which  re 
quested  the  appointment  of  a  chief  justice  and  an  at 
torney-general  for  New  York,  the  Board  gave  an 
indication  of  what  was  to  be  its  later  policy  toward 
the  judiciary.  After  pointing  out  the  meager  allow 
ance  the  assembly  of  New  York  had  granted  to  pre 
vious  incumbents  of  these  offices,  it  said : 

We  .  .  .  are  humbly  of  opinion  that  a  dependance  upon 
the  General  Assembly  there  for  a  further  allowance  will  by  no 
ways  suit  with  your  Majesty's  service  in  the  administration 
of  justice  against  piracy  and  irregular  trade.  .  .  We  do 
therefore  humbly  represent  to  your  Majesty  that  much  greater 
allowances  will  be  necessary  to  invite  fit  persons  to  accept  of 
those  employments,  and  that  they  be  assured  thereof  by  an 
establishment  here;  which  extraordinary  charge  we  humbly 
conceive  will  be  abundantly  recompensed  by  a  very  great  in 
crease  of  your  Majesty's  customs.451 

of  the  attorney-general  in  England.     See:  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  16,  pp. 
168-197. 

449  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iv,  1138-1139.     On  the  death  of 
Mompesson,  Governor  Hunter  appointed  Lewis  Morris.     See:  Ibid.,  vol.  v, 
400. 

450  See:  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  v,  400,  705,  949,  977;  vol. 
vii,  464,  500 ;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ix,  379 ;  Smith,  W.  R.  South  Caro 
lina  as  a  Royal  Province,  333-334. 

451  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iv,  599. 


i98        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

jf 

Apparently  this  representation  was  acted  upon  in 
full.  Atwood  and  Broughton  were  appointed,  but  it 
is  not  quite  clear  that  they  received  their  pay  from 
England.  Cornbury  says  Atwood  received  three  hun 
dred  pounds  from  there  and  asked  a  similar  salary 
for  Dr.  Bridges,452  but  the  Board  states,  in  a  letter  to 
Bellomont,  that  the  men  had  received  some  check  at 
the  treasury,453  and  fails  to  inform  us  whether  or  not 
they  overcame  the  difficulty.  The  principle  laid 
down  by  the  Board  was  an  excellent  one,  but  required 
money  to  carry  it  into  operation.  As  there  was  prac 
tically  no  money  in  the  imperial  treasury  to  the  credit 
of  New  York,  the  treasury  officials  resisted  any  pro 
posal  to  pay  salaries  to  such  officers.  In  Virginia 
conditions  were  a  little  better  as  there  was  a  consider 
able  fund  arising  from  the  quit  rents,  and  the  salary 
of  the  attorney-general  was  paid  out  of  that.  In  this 
way  he  was  made  independent  of  the  local  legisla 
ture.454 

There  is  but  little  doubt  that  the  power  of  the  As 
sembly  to  fix  salaries  rendered  all  the  judges  practi 
cally  dependent  upon  that  body,  except  in  the  few 
cases  in  which  they  received  their  salaries  from  the 
crown.  In  New  York  the  salaries  were  varied  from 
time  to  time,455  and  in  one  case  apparently  for  the  pur- 

452  Cornbury  to  the  Board,  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iv,  1142. 

453  "Notwithstanding  all  that  we  have  been  able  to  do,  towards  the  pro 
moting  of  what  your  Lordship  has  so  oft  desired,  in  relation  to  a  chief  justice 
and  attorney-general  for  the  Province  of  New  York,  yet  Mr.  Atwood  and 
Mr.  Broughton  met  with  some  stop  in  the  treasury,  and  we  do  not  see  that 
anything   further  will  be  done  in  that  business  at  present."  -  New  York 
Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iv,  700. 

454  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  16,  pp.  168-197. 

455  See  the  appropriation  bills  in  the  New  York  Colonial  Laws,  vols.  i, 
ii,  iii,  passim. 


IMPERIALISTIC  POLICY  OF  THE  BOARD      199 

pose  of  showing  disapproval  of  a  decision  of  the  Su 
preme  Court.456  These  encroachments  upon  the  ju 
diciary,  however,  did  not  attract  the  serious  attention 
of  the  Board  of  Trade  for  many  years,  and  the  ob 
scure  clause  of  Bellomont's  instructions  was  contin 
ued  in  those  given  to  other  governors.  Governor 
Clinton  of  New  York  was  induced  to  interpret  this 
clause  as  a  direction  to  make  the  judges'  commissions 
read  during  good  behavior.457  His  successor,  De 
Lancey,  followed  the  same  custom  and  governors  of 
other  colonies  may  have  issued  similar  commissions; 
it  is  certain  that  they  did  in  New  Jersey. 

In  1752  the  Board  of  Trade  carefully  revised  the 
general  instructions  to  the  governors,  and  the  clause 
regarding  the  commissions  for  judges  shows  the  at 
tempt  of  the  Board  to  check  the  growing  changes  in 
the  colonial  constitution.  Certain  events  had  called 
the  attention  of  the  Board  to  the  uncertain  meaning 
of  the  former  clause.  The  town  clerk  of  Albany  had 
been  appointed  in  1728  by  the  crown  to  hold  office 
during  pleasure,  but  upon  his  death,  in  1750,  Govern 
or  Clinton  appointed  Mr.  Gansevoert  during  good 
behavior.  In  the  meantime,  however,  the  Board  had 
secured  a  commission  for  Mr.  Wraxall  to  hold  the 
office  during  pleasure.  When  the  latter  arrived  at 
Albany,  he  found  Gansevoert  in  possession  of  the  of 
fice;  and,  as  the  latter  was  not  disposed  to  recognize 
the  commission  from  England,  Mr.  Wraxall  ap 
pealed  to  the  Board.  That  body,  after  a  careful  in 
vestigation,  proposed  that  the  attorney-general  of 

450  Chalmers,  George.  Introduction  to  tlie  Revolt,  vol.  ii. 
-57  Golden  to  the  Board  of  Trade,  August  12,   1761.     He  does  not  state 
what  the  practice  was  prior  to  Clinton's  administration. 


200        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

New  York  should  take  the  proper  measures  to  vacate 
the  commission  issued  by  Clinton.458 

Another  of  Clinton's  commissions,  that  to  Chief 
Justice  De  Lancey,  was  considered  by  the  Board  at 
almost  the  same  time  as  that  to  the  town  clerk  of  Al 
bany.  This  commission  had  been  issued  soon  after 
Clinton's  arrival  in  New  York  and  was  for  good  be 
havior,  while  that  office  "had  before  that  time  been 
usually  held  during  pleasure."  459  The  Board  referred 
the  case  of  the  attorney-  and  the  solicitor-general  with 
the  following  queries : 

Had  Mr.  Clinton  any  power  to  grant  such  commission  during 
good  behavior,  contrary  to  what  had  been  practised  in  former 
cases?  Can  the  crown  legally  revoke  the  said  commission? 
if  it  can  what  will  be  the  proper  method  of  doing  it? 

The  law  officers  answered  that, 

As  the  power  given  by  commission  is  general  we  apprehend 
the  grant  is  good  in  point  of  law  and  cannot  be  revoked  with 
out  misbehavior.460 

The  Board  thus  had  sufficient  information  before 
it  to  know  the  limitations  of  the  previous  instructions 
and  to  change  those  for  the  future  so  as  to  prevent 
similar  occurrences.  In  1754  Governor  Dobbs  of 
North  Carolina  and  Governor  Reynolds  of  Georgia 
were  instructed,  "that  all  commissions  to  be  granted 
by  you  to  any  person  or  persons  to  be  judges,  justices 
of  the  peace  or  other  necessary  officer  be  granted  dur 
ing  pleasure  only."  481  This  clause  was  also  inserted 
in  the  instructions  afterwards  given  to  other  govern- 

45S  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  vi,  768-769. 

459  This  would  seem  to  indicate  that  the  practice  had  been  irregular. 

460  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  vi,  792. 

461  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  vol.  v,  1124,  clause  62;  C.O.  5,  672, 
p.  163. 


IMPERIALISTIC  POLICY  OF  THE  BOARD      201 

ors; 4C2  and  as  the  governors  were  strictly  enjoined  to 
observe  their  instructions  in  all  particulars,  the  ques 
tion  was  certain  to  come  to  an  issue. 

The  first  move  came  from  the  assemblies.  That  of 
Pennsylvania  took  advantage  of  the  venality  of  Gov 
ernor  Denny  and  secured  a  judiciary  act,  by  which 
the  judges  were  to  hold  their  commissions  during 
good  behavior  instead  of  at  the  pleasure  of  the  pro 
prietary.  This  law  was  passed  in  September,  1759, 
and  provided  that  judges  could  be  removed  only  on 
an  address  of  the  assembly,463  but  the  proprietaries  at 
once  complained  of  the  act  and  asked  for  its  disallow 
ance  by  the  crown.  The  Board  of  Trade  reported 
strongly  against  the  law,  because  its  object 

Is  to  change  the  tenure  by  which  the  judges  now  hold  their 
offices;  not  only  in  the  province  of  Pennsylvania  but  in  every 
other  colony  in  North  America  and  the  West  Indies  from 
"durante  bene  placitia"  to  "Quamdiu  se  bene  gesserent"  464 

and  upon  this  representation  the  act  was  promptly 
disallowed. 

This  report  is  interesting  as  showing  that  the 
Board  interpreted  the  early  indefinite  instruction  as 
meaning  that  commissions  should  be  during  pleasure. 
It  had  already  announced  its  policy  in  the  case  of  a 
similar  law  passed  by  the  assembly  of  Jamaica,  upon 
which  the  attorney-  and  solicitor-general  were  of 
opinion,  that  it  was  not  expedient  for  the  interests  of 
either  the  mother  country  or  the  colonies  that  judges 
in  the  plantations  should  hold  their  places  quamdiu 

462  Governors  Osborn,  De  Lancey,  and  Hardy  of  New  York,  and  was 
the  only  clause  on  the  subject  in  Colden's  instructions  in  1761. 

463  Pennsylvania  Statutes  at  Large,  vol.  v,  463. 

461  Representation  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  in  Pennsylvania  Statutes  at 
Large,  vol.  v,  722. 


202        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

se  bene  gesserent.  The  decision  on  the  Pennsylvania 
act  had  scarcely  been  announced  when  the  death  of 
the  king  terminated  all  commissions  in  the  colonies 
and  brought  the  whole  question  to  a  head. 

The  judges  in  New  York  refused  to  act  until  their 
commissions  had  been  renewed,  and  demanded  them, 
as  they  had  formerly  held  them,  on  good  behavior. 
In  August,  1761,  Governor  Golden  wrote  the  Board 
that  he  might  be  compelled  to  issue  their  commissions 
in  that  form  in  spite  of  his  instructions.465  In  the  pre 
ceding  June  the  assembly  had  sent  up  a  bill  providing 
that  the  judges'  commissions  should  be  during  good 
behavior,  and  when  it  met  again  in  the  following  Sep 
tember,  it  insisted  that  the  governor  should  sign  this 
bill,  which  he  had  hitherto  refused  to  do.  Golden 
offered  to  yield,  provided  the  assembly  would  grant 
the  judges  permanent  salaries,  so  that  they  would  not 
be  too  dependent  upon  the  assembly.466  The  lower 
house  refused  to  do  this,  consequently  the  courts 
were  at  a  standstill.  In  the  meantime  Golden  was 
waiting  anxiously  for  instructions  from  the  Board. 

The  question  of  judges'  commissions  had  also  been 
raised  in  other  colonies.  The  assembly  of  North 
Carolina  passed  a  judiciary  act  by  which  the  judges 
were  to  hold  these  during  good  behavior,  and  in  spite 
of  his  instructions,  Governor  Dobbs  allowed  this  to 

465  "I  have  been  informed  that  the  judges  design  to  forbear  acting  until 
their  commissions  are  renewed  and  that  they  will  not  accept  of  them  other 
wise  than  during  good  behaviour  as  they  had  their  commissions  formerly. 

"It  may  be  of  most  dangerous  consequence  to  stop  the  course  of  justice, 
and  this  may  lay  me  under  a  necessity  of  complying  in  a  matter  which  is  so 
popular,  tho  the  doing  of  it  be  against  my  own  judgment  (as  well  as  His 
Majesty's  instructions) ."  —  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  vii,  470. 

466  Letter  of  Golden  to  the  Board,  January  n,  1762,  Golden  Papers,  in 
New  York  Historical  Society  Collections,  vol.  ix,  148. 


IMPERIALISTIC  POLICY  OF  THE  BOARD      203 

become  a  law.487  Governor  Hardy  arrived  in  New 
Jersey  late  in  1761  and  found  all  judicial  proceed 
ings  stopped  because  of  the  expiration  of  the  judges' 
commissions.  He  met  his  assembly  in  a  short  time, 
and  having  been  informed  that  it  would  grant  no 
salaries  to  the  judges  if  they  accepted  their  commis 
sions  other  than  during  good  behavior,  he  renewed 
them  "in  the  same  manner  as  they  have  hitherto  been 
granted."  468 

In  the  meantime  letters  from  the  governors  had 
reached  the  Board  of  Trade,  by  which  that  body  was 
fully  informed  of  the  situation  in  America.  It 
realized  the  importance  of  the  question  at  issue  and 
grasped  the  opportunity  to  enforce  its  policy.  No 
vember  n,  1761,  in  a  long  representation  to  the  com 
mittee  of  the  Privy  Council,  it  entered  into  a  careful 
argument  against  allowing  judges'  commissions  to  be 
granted  except  for  pleasure. 

Late  years  have  produced  too  many  examples  of  governors 
having  been  obliged  for  want  of  such  an  establishment  as 
might  induce  able  persons  to  offer  their  service,  to  confer  the 
office  on  those  who  have  accepted  it  merely  with  a  view  to 
make  it  subservient  to  their  own  private  interests,  and  who 
added  to  their  ignorance,  of  the  law,  have  too  frequently  be 
come  the  partisans  of  a  factious  Assembly  upon  whom  they 
have  been  dependent  for  their  support,  and  who  have  withheld 
or  enlarged  that  support  according  as  the  conduct  of  the  judges 
was  more  or  less  favorable  to  their  interests. 

That  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  a  state  of  government  more 
dangerous  to  the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  subject,  but  aggra 
vated  as  the  evil  would  be  by  making  the  judges'  commissions 

467  The  judges  in  the  Carolinas  had  previously  held  only  during  pleasure. 
See:  Smith,  W.  R.  South  Carolina  as  a  Royal  Province,  333-334. 

468  Hardy  to  the   Board   of  Trade,  January  20,    1762,   in   New  Jersey 
Archives,  vol.  ix,  346. 


204        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

during  good  behavior  without  rendering  them  at  the  same  time 
independent  of  the  factious  will  and  caprice  of  an  assembly, 
the  said  Lords  Commissioners  cannot  but  consider  the  propo 
sition  as  subversive  of  all  true  policy,  destructive  of  the  in 
terests  of  Your  Majesty's  subjects,  and  tending  to  lessen  that 
just  dependence  which  the  colonies  ought  to  have  upon  the 
government  of  the  mother  country.469 

This  representation  was  followed  up  on  December 
2,  1761,  by  general  instructions  to  all  the  governors  in 
America.  These  recited  the  fact  that  several  colonies 
had  passed  or  attempted  to  pass  laws  for  commission 
ing  judges  during  good  behavior,  and  that  in  several 
colonies  the  governors  had  issued  such  commissions.470 

And  whereas  it  does  not  appear  to  us,  that,  in  the  present 
situation  and  circumstances  of  our  said  colonies  it  would 
either  be  for  the  interests  or  advantage  of  the  said  colonies,  or 
of  this  our  kingdom  of  Great  Britain  that  the  judges  or  other 
chief  officers  of  justice,  should  hold  their  offices,  during  good 
behavior ;  it  is  therefore  our  express  will  and  pleasure  that  you 
do  not  upon  any  pretense  whatever  upon  pain  of  being  re 
moved  from  your  government  give  your  assent  to  any  act,  by 
which  the  tenure  of  the  commissions  to  be  granted  to  the  chief 
judges,  or  other  justices  of  the  several  courts  of  judicature  shall 
be  regulated,  or  ascertained  in  any  manner  whatever;  and  you 
are  to  take  particular  care  in  all  commissions  to  be  by  you 
granted  to  the  said  chief  judges,  or  other  justices  of  the  courts 
of  judicature  that  the  said  commissions  are  granted,  during 
pleasure  only,  agreeable  to  what  has  been  the  antient  practice 
and  usage  in  our  said  colonies  and  plantations.471 

Before  this  order  reached  America,  Governor 
Hardy  of  New  Jersey,  as  has  been  noted,  had  broken 
through  his  instructions  and  renewed  the  commis- 

4<59C.O.    324,    I7,    pp.    I33,   ff. 

470  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  vol.  vi,  591. 

471  C.O.  5,  324,  pp.  170-173. 


IMPERIALISTIC  POLICY  OF  THE  BOARD      205 

sions  during  good  behavior.472  As  soon  as  the  news  of 
his  action  reached  England,  the  Board  demanded  and 
obtained  his  immediate  removal  from  office.  At  the 
same  time  it  asked  the  attorney-  and  solicitor-general 
for  an  opinion  as  to  the  validity  of  the  commissions 
thus  issued  in  violation  of  the  governor's  instructions, 
and  as  to  the  possibility  of  vacating  them  by  legal 
process.473  It  was  nine  months  before  an  opinion  was 
returned,  and  then  it  was  that  of  Attorney-general 
Yorke  alone.  He  considered  the  action  of  the  govern 
or  as  illegal,  because  he  had  committed  an  act  which 
was  not  only  unauthorized,  but  was  positively  forbid 
den;  but  as  the  judges  had  been  de  facto  officers  their 
acts  should  be  considered  valid.  The  only  feasible 
method  of  removing  them  from  office,  however,  was 
by  an  appeal  to  the  king  in  council.474  Fortunately 
such  a  remedy  was  not  required,  for  Governor  Hardy 
induced  the  judges  to  resign  their  commissions  and 
accept  new  ones  during  pleasure  only;  but  such  action 
came  too  late  to  prevent  his  recall. 

While  Hardy  was  yielding  to  the  demands  of  the 
former  judges,  Lieutenant-governor  Golden  was  en 
deavoring  to  make  terms  with  his  assembly.  Early  in 

472  Cf.  Beer's  British  Colonial  Policy,  191.     There  is  an  implication  in 
this  that  Hardy  had  received  these  later  instructions  before  he  issued  the 
commissions,  which  is  probably  erroneous,  as  the  instructions  were  not  com 
pleted  until  December  2,  1761,  and  on  January  20,  1762,  Hardy  writes  that 
the  commissions  had  already  been  granted. 

473  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ix,  349-351. 

474  "I  am  of  opinion  that  the  appointment  of  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court, 
during  good  behavior,  instead  of  during  pleasure,  contrary  to  the  king's 
instructions,  in  governments  subsisting  solely  by  his  Majesty's  authority,  is 
illegal  and  invalid.     The  letters  patent  empower  the  governor  to  constitute 
judges,  without  prescribing  anything  as  to  the  form  or  mode  of  constituting 
them;  but  the  instructions,  which  are  referred  to  by  the  letters  patent,  and 


206        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

1762  he  was  forced  to  sign  the  appropriation  bill, 
which  granted  salaries  to  the  judges  only  on  condition 
that  they  accept  commissions  during  good  behavior.475 
In  the  meantime  the  situation  was  further  compli 
cated  by  the  arrival  of  Benjamin  Pratt  with  a  warrant 
under  the  sign  manual,  directing  the  governor  to  com 
mission  him  chief  justice  during  pleasure.476  He  re 
ceived  his  commission  and  entered  upon  his  duties, 
but  received  no  salary.  Naturally  he  could  not  afford 
to  continue  to  work  without  pay,  and  at  the  urgent 
request  of  Golden,  the  Board  of  Trade  secured  a  sal 
ary  for  him  to  be  paid  out  of  the  quit  rents.477  The 
other  judges  refused  to  accept  commissions  during 
pleasure,  for  in  that  case  they  would  receive  no  sal 
aries;  and  the  governor  could  not  issue  commissions 
in  any  other  manner  without  danger  of  being  imme 
diately  removed  from  office,  consequently  Chief  Jus 
tice  Pratt  acted  alone  for  some  time.478  Finally,  how 
ever,  the  judges  gave  way  and  consented  to  accept 
their  commissions  in  accordance  with  the  governor's 
instructions. 

consequently  must  be  incorporated  into  them,  regulate  the  mode  of  the  con 
stitution."  —  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ix,  380-381. 

475  Letter  of  Lieutenant-governor  Golden  to  the  Board,  February  u,  1762. 
Golden  Papers,  New  York  Historical  Society  Collections,  vol.  ix,  159. 

476  pratt  had  been  appointed  by  the  Board  early  in  1761,  and  arrived  in 
New  York  in  October  of  the  same  year.     New  York  Colonial  Documents, 
vol.  vii,  464,  483. 

477  "\ye  entirely  agree  in  opinion  with  the  lieutenant-governor  that  if 
this  gentleman  be  neglected  under  so  singular  a  hardship,  the  consequences 
will  greatly  affect  your  Majesty's  authority  in  every  part  of  administration, 
we  cannot  but  adopt  and  humbly  recommend  Mr.  Colden's  proposition  that 
your  Majesty  would  be  graciously  pleased  to  grant  Mr.  Pratt  as  chief  justice 
of  New  York  a  salary  out  of  your  quit  rents  in  that  province."  —  Representa 
tion  of  the  Board,  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  vii,  506. 

47S  Golden  to  the  Board,  February  n,  1762,  in  New  York  Historical  So 
ciety  Collections,  vol.  ix,  159. 


IMPERIALISTIC  POLICY  OF  THE  BOARD      207 

A  similar  struggle  had  occurred  in  some  of  the 
other  colonies,  but  in  all  cases  the  Board  was  success 
ful,  and  from  that  time  on  judges  were  commissioned 
only  during  pleasure.  Two  acts  of  North  Carolina 
for  regulating  judicial  procedure  were  disallowed, 
largely  because  the  judges  were  to  be  commissioned 
during  good  behavior.479  These  incidents  settled  the 
question  of  the  position  of  the  judges  until  it  again 
became  prominent  on  the  eve  of  the  Revolution. 

From  the  foregoing  account  it  is  seen  that  the  atti 
tude  of  the  Board  of  Trade  toward  the  judiciary  was 
fairly  consistent.  As  early  as  1699,  ^  na^  proposed 
that  the  chief  judicial  officers  should  be  paid  by  the 
home  government,  and  at  no  time  did  it  countenance 
any  movements  which  would  render  them  independ 
ent  of  the  crown.  The  Board  understood  its  instruc 
tions  to  the  governors  to  mean  that  judges'  commis 
sions  should  be  for  pleasure  only,  and  for  years  most 
of  them  appear  to  have  been  issued  in  that  form.480 
The  first  problem  was  to  make  them  secure  from 
arbitrary  removal  by  the  governors,  and  for  that  rea 
son  judicial  officers  could  be  removed  only  for  suffi 
cient  cause.  The  irregular  practice  of  commission 
ing  them  during  good  behavior  grew  up  at  a  time 

479  The  first  act  was  that  of  1760,  which  was  disallowed  on  a  repre 
sentation  of  the  Board  of  December,    1761.    The   second    act,   passed   in 
1761,  was  a  supplement  to  the  first  and  had  other  objectionable  features 
which  induced  the  Board  to  disallow  it.     The  agent  of  the  colony,  Couchet 
Jouvencal,  entered   a  strong  protest   against  this   action  of  the  Board,   in 
which  he  advanced  the  reasons  for  demanding  that  the  tenure  of  judges' 
commissions  should  be  changed  from  pleasure  to  good  behavior.     See:  North 
Carolina  Colonial  Records,  vol.  vi,  587-589,  701,  983-989. 

480  The   writer  has   found  no  clear   cases  of  commissions  which  were 
issued  during  good  behavior  before  those  of  Governor  Clinton,  who  com 
menced  his  administration  in  1744.     Certainly  all  commissions  issued  by  the 
home  government  were  for  pleasure  only. 


208        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

when  the  Board  was  most  inefficient  and  the  assem 
blies  were  making  their  greatest  encroachments  upon 
the  constitution. 

After  1752  the  Board  recognized  the  dangers  to 
the  empire  from  the  dependence  of  all  crown  officers 
upon  the  assembly,  and  made  the  instructions  so  clear 
that  they  could  not  be  misunderstood.  From  that 
time  on  commissions  could  be  granted  legally  only 
during  pleasure.  The  attempt  by  the  assemblies  to 
regulate  commissions  by  colonial  laws  was  immedi 
ately  opposed  by  the  Board;  and  when  all  commis 
sions  were  vacated  by  the  death  of  George  II,  it 
compelled  the  governors  to  observe  their  instructions 
on  this  point. 

As  far  as  this  part  of  its  policy  is  concerned,  it 
must  be  admitted  that  the  Board  scored  a  brilliant 
victory,  but  in  doing  so  it  created  considerable  ill 
feeling  in  America.  The  average  man  in  1761  was 
totally  ignorant  of  the  form  of  the  judges'  commissions 
thirty  years  earlier,  and  to  him  this  action  of  the 
Board  was  an  uncalled-for  and  arbitrary  attack  upon 
the  independence  of  the  judiciary.  This  is  the  view 
that  is  presented  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
with  the  blame  laid  at  the  door  of  George  III,  be 
cause  the  change  had  been  effected  at  his  accession. 
This  was  the  natural  conclusion  of  men  who  were 
familiar  only  with  the  conditions  after  1740,  but  it  is 
evident  that  the  charge  is  an  erroneous  one.  The 
change  in  itself  was  not  an  attack  upon  the  independ 
ence  of  the  judiciary,  but  an  effort  to  restore  an  earlier 
custom  of  appointing  judges  during  the  pleasure  of 
the  crown,  which  for  a  time  had  been  evaded  without 
authority  from  the  home  government,  and  in  direct 


IMPERIALISTIC  POLICY  OF  THE  BOARD      209 

opposition  to  what  was  supposed  to  be  the  instruc 
tions  to  the  governors.  George  III  could  not  be  re 
sponsible  for  the  action  of  the  Board,  because  the 
latter  had  been  trying  for  ten  years  before  his  acces 
sion  to  restore  the  earlier  practice,  but  was  ham 
pered  by  the  terms  of  the  existing  commissions.  There 
was  nothing  new  in  the  policy  of  George  III.  The 
Board  simply  took  advantage  of  the  opportunity  sud 
denly  offered  it  by  the  termination  of  all  existing 
commissions  on  the  death  of  George  II  and  carried 
into  execution  a  policy  which  it  had  long  before 
determined  upon. 

Plans  of  union 

When  the  Board  of  Trade  was  organized,  the  col 
onies  were  engaged  in  the  closing  struggles  of  the 
first  of  the  French  wars,  and  the  immediate  admin 
istrative  problems  were  those  of  defense.  There 
were  plenty  of  inhabitants  in  the  northern  provinces 
to  protect  that  region  against  all  aggressions  from 
the  French,  if  they  could  only  be  brought  to  act  to 
gether.  The  great  obstacles  to  concerted  action  were 
the  separation  of  the  colonies,  due  to  geographical 
situation,  and  the  existence  of  independent  govern 
ments  over  which  the  crown  had  no  direct  control. 

In  trying  to  remove  the  latter  difficulty,  the  Board 
had  before  it  the  previous  attempt  of  the  British 
government  to  centralize  the  military  power  of  the 
northern  provinces  in  the  hands  of  the  governors  of 
New  York  and  Massachusetts.  Fletcher  was  gov 
ernor  of  Pennsylvania,  New  York,  the  Jerseys,  and 
in  addition  was  given  command  of  the  militia  of 
Connecticut.  Phips  was  governor  of  the  enlarged 


210        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

province  of  Massachusetts  and  also  commander  of 
the  Rhode  Island  militia.  Neither  of  these  men, 
however,  had  succeeded  in  enforcing  his  military 
authority  over  the  charter  colonies,  because  the  latter 
insisted  that  their  charters  gave  the  command  of  the 
militia  to  their  own  officers.481 

The  Board,  however,  challenged  this  contention, 
and  after  a  careful  examination  of  the  charters  of 
Connecticut,  Rhode  Island,  and  the  Jerseys,  it  re 
ported  that  the  crown  had  the  power  to  appoint  a 
captain-general  for  all  these  provinces.  As  this  opin 
ion  was  supported  by  the  Board's  legal  advisers,  the 
first  plan  of  union  was  made  to  hinge  on  this  reserve 
power  of  the  crown.  The  Board  proposed  that  an 
able  man  should  be  sent  over,  commissioned  as  cap 
tain-general  of  all  the  forces, 

And  all  the  militia  of  all  the  provinces,  colonies,  and  planta 
tions  on  the  continent  of  the  Northern  America,  with  a  power 
to  levy  arms,  muster,  command  and  employ  them  on  all  neces 
sary  occasions  for  the  defence  of  those  countries  ...  to 
appoint  and  commission  officers  to  train  and  exercise  at  con 
venient  times  such  of  the  inhabitants  as  are  fit  to  bear  arms.482 

In  addition  to  this  military  power  vested  in  him,  the 
captain-general  was  to  be  given  authority  to  super 
sede  any  royal  governor  in  whose  province  he  hap 
pened  to  be. 

No  action  was  taken  at  that  time ;  but  five  months 
later  the  Board  submitted  another  representation,  in 
which  it  considered  the  various  arguments  for  and 
against  the  scheme  proposed  in  its  former  report,  and 
again  urged  the  military  union  under  one  man. 

481  Greene,  Evarts  B.  Provincial  America,  117. 

482  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iv,  228. 


IMPERIALISTIC  POLICY  OF  THE  BOARD      211 

The  distinct  proprieties,  charters,  and  different  forms  of  gov 
ernment  in  several  of  those  neighboring  colonies,  make  all 
other  union,  except  under  such  a  military  head  (in  our  opin 
ion)  at  present  impracticable,  and  that  what  hath  yet  been  done 
towards  such  a  military  union  for  common  defence  (by  the 
appointment  of  a  quota  in  the  year  1694)  natn  teen  so  little 
complied  with,  that  it  requires  the  exertion  of  a  more  vigorous 
power  than  hath  hitherto  been  practised,  to  make  it  produce 
the  desired  effect.483 

The  Board  proposed,  as  a  proper  plan  for  effecting 
and  supplementing  the  military  union,  that  some  suit 
able  person  should  be  sent  out  as  governor  of  New 
Hampshire,  Massachusetts,  and  New  York,  with  his 
residence  in  the  latter  colony.  This  recommendation 
was  acted  upon,  and  commissions  granting  the  neces 
sary  civil  and  military  powers  were  issued  to  the  Earl 
of  Bellomont,484  who  was  thus  constituted  military 
governor  over  all  the  colonies  north  and  east  of  Penn 
sylvania. 

The  war  closed  so  soon  after  his  commission  was  i 
sued  that  there  was  no  opportunity  to  test  the  military 
efficiency  of  the  arrangement.  Connecticut  and 
Rhode  Island,  as  they  had  done  in  the  case  of  the 
Phips  and  Fletcher  commission,  protested  vigorous 
ly  against  what  they  considered  an  infringement  upon 
their  charters.  In  spite  of  these  protests,  however, 
the  Board  continued  the  policy  of  giving  the  control 
of  their  military  forces  to  the  governors  of  the  other 
colonies.  Under  Bellomont's  commission  this  mili 
tary  power  was  annexed  to  the  governorship  of  Mass 
achusetts.  Upon  his  death,  New  York  and  Massa- 

483  Representation  of  the  Board,  February  25,  1697,  in  New  York  Colonial 
Documents,  vol.  iv,  260. 
*8*  —  Ibid.,  261,  266-273. 


212        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

chusetts  were  again  separated  and  the  command  of 
the  Connecticut  militia  attached  to  the  governorship 
of  New  York,485  which  policy  was  continued  during 
the  administrations  of  both  Cornbury  and  Hunter. 

The  command  of  the  Rhode  Island  militia  was  left 
in  the  hands  of  Governor  Dudley  of  Massachusetts, 
who  had  secured  the  appointment  to  that  province  on 
the  death  of  Bellomont,  but  he  found  considerable 
difficulty  in  exercising  his  commission.486  Cornbury 
and  Hunter  experienced  similar  difficulties  in  Con 
necticut,  as  both  colonies  continued  to  deny  the  valid 
ity  of  the  military  commissions  of  the  governors  of 
Massachusetts  and  New  York.487 
\iThe  Board  had  recognized  the  impossibility  of 
bringing  about  any  effective  union,  unless  the  powers 
of  government  which  had  been  granted  to  the  charter 
and  proprietary  colonies  were  restored  to  the  crown. 
While  it  aimed  to  reduce  these  governments  to  the 
same  form  as  the  royal  provinces  as  a  means  of  secur 
ing  administrative  efficiency,  it  also  attacked  their 
independent  position,  because  they  neither  defended 
themselves  nor  furnished  suitable  assistance  to  the 
neighboring  colonies  in  the  time  of  war.488  If  they 
could  be  deprived  of  their  charter  rights,  the  Board 
could  see  its  way  clear  to  put  all  North  America  un 
der  a  uniform  type  of  government. 

485  Representation  of  the  Board  on  Cornbury's  commission,  in  New  York 
'Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iv,  884. 

486  Palfrey,  John.  History  of  New  England,  vol.  iv,  354. 

487  See  their  letters  to  the  Board  complaining  of  the  action  of  Connecticut, 
in  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vols.  iv,  v,  passim. 

488  Representations  of  the  Board,  in   North  Carolina   Colonial  Records, 
vol.  i,  537,  540,  630-633,  889.     Cf.  Kellogg's  "American  Colonial  Charter," 
in  American  Historical  Association  Report  for  1903,  vol.  i,  284-321. 


IMPERIALISTIC  POLICY  OF  THE  BOARD      213 

It  was  one  of  the  constant  policies  of  the  Board  to 
oppose  the  charter  and  proprietary  governments  and 
curtail  their  privileges  as  much  as  possible.  The 
first  opposition  culminated  in  the  attempt  of  1701  to  < 
abolish  the  charters  by  act  of  Parliament.  This  at 
tempt  failed,  but  it  was  renewed  the  next  year  and 
still  again  in  the  years,  1706,  1715,  and  1722.^  In  all 
of  these  attempts,  the  Board  encountered  so  much 
opposition  from  the  colonial  governments,  as  well  as 
from  vested  interests  in  England,  that  the  desired 
legislation  failed.  Action  by  quo  ivarranto  was  nq 
more  successful  as  a  direct  means  of  attack;490  but 
the  constant  opposition  resulted  in  voluntary  surren 
ders  of  the  proprietary  rights  of  government  in  the 
Jerseys  and  the  Carolinas,  and  weakened  the  inde-\ 
pendence  of  the  charter  colonies.491 

489  Randolph  was  pushing  it  in  the  House  of  Lords  and  when  it  became 
evident  that  the  bill  could  not  pass  that  session,  he  was  ordered  to  take  affi 
davits  of  such  witnesses  as  could  not  be  present  at  another  session  and  file 
them  with  the  Board. 

William  Penn  himself  made  out  a  bill  for  this  purpose  and  submitted  it 
to  Manchester,  who  in  turn  transmitted  it  to  the  Board.  That  body  rejected 
the  bill  and  insisted  upon  the  former  measure.  Manchester  directed  that 
Mr.  Henry  Baker,  solicitor  of  the  treasury  should  push  the  bill  before  the 
House  of  Lords.  See:  C.O.  5,  1289,  p.  12;  C.O.  5,  1365,  p.  323;  Board  of 
Trade  Journal,  14,  pp.  55,  335-338.  Cf.  JVfiss  Kellogg's  admirable  treatment 
of  this  topic  in  American  Historical  Association  Report  for  1903,  vol.  i, 
284-321. 

490  See  the  Order  in  Council  of  June  26,  1706,  which  states  that  although 
the  law  officers  had  sufficient  evidence  for  a  successful  prosecution  in  the 
Court  of  Queen's  Bench,  it  was  very  doubtful  if  a  peer  of  the  realm,  such  as 
the  proprietor  of  North  Carolina,  could  be  proceeded  against  by  quo  war- 
ranto.     See:  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  vol.  i,  644. 

491  Cf.  the  evident  desire  of  Connecticut  not  to  give  any  cause  for  com 
plaint,    described    in   "Talcott   Papers,"    in    Connecticut   Historical    Society 
Collections,  vols.  iv,  v,  passim.     See  also  the  urgent  letters  of  Calvert  to 
Governor  Sharpe  to  send  over  the  laws  so  they  could  be  laid  before  the 
Board,  in  Sharpe's  Correspondence,  vol.  ii,  passim. 


214        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

The  Board  had  abandoned,  for  the  time,  its  scheme 
of  consolidating  the  various  governments,  except  so 
far  as  it  subsisted  in  appointing  a  single  governor  for 
New  Hampshire  and  Massachusetts  and  later  for 
New  Jersey  and  New  York.  The  plan  had  been 
brought  forward  as  a  war  measure,  and  was  based 
upon  military  rather  than  administrative  needs.  The 
next  plan  of  union,  however,  was  proposed  in  time 
of  peace  and  was  intended  to  secure  administrative 
improvement,  as  well  as  military  efficiency. 

This  plan  is  a  part  of  the  representation  made  by 
the  Board  in  1721.  After  describing  the  conditions 
existing  in  each  colony,  the  report  takes  up  the  ques 
tion  of  measures  which  would  improve  the  govern 
ment  in  all  the  colonies.  The  first  great  difficulty 
was  the  existence  of  the  proprietary  and  charter  gov 
ernments  ; 

Nor  is  it  to  be  expected  that  either  our  Indians  or  Euro 
pean  neighbours  should  pay  that  respect  to  your  Majesty's 
subjects,  which  all  those  who  have  the  happiness  to  be  under 
Your  Majesty's  protection,  might  otherwise  reasonably  hope 
for,  until  it  shall  appear,  that  all  the  British  Colonies  in 
America  hold  immediately  of  one  Lord  and  have  but  one  joint 
interest  to  pursue ;  for  which  reason  and  many  others,  we  shall 
first  humbly  propose,  that  all  the  proprietary  governments 
should  be  reassumed  to  the  crown,  either  by  purchase,  agree 
ment,  or  otherwise,  as  conceiving  this  to  be  one  of  those 
essential  points,  without  which  your  Majesty's  colonies  can 
never  be  put  upon  a  right  footing.492 

After  considering  means  of  increasing  the  trade 
of  the  colonies,  securing  larger  returns  from  the  quit 
rents,  and  of  protecting  the  woods,  the  report  takes 
up  the  question  of  union. 

492  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  v,  627-630. 


IMPERIALISTIC  POLICY  OF  THE  BOARD      215 

_ 


But  the  most  effectual  way  to  put  in  execution  what  we 
have  already  offered  upon  this  subject  to  your  Majesty's 
consideration  and  to  render  the  several  provinces  on  the  con 
tinent  of  America,  from  Nova  Scotia  to  South  Carolina, 
mutually  subservient  to  each  others  support,  will  be  to  put 
the  whole  under  the  government  of  one  Lord-lieutenant,  or 
captain-general,  from  whom  all  other  governors  of  particular 
provinces  should  receive  their  orders,  in  all  cases,  for  your 
Majesty's  service,  and  cease  to  have  any  command  respective 
ly  in  such  province,  where  the  said  captain-general  shall  at  any 
time  reside,  as  it  is  at  present  practised  in  the  Leeward  Islands, 
where  each  island  has  a  particular  governor,  but  one  general 
over  the  whole. 

The  said  captain-general  should  be  constantly  attended  by 
two  or  more  councillors  deputed  from  each  plantation,  he 
should  have  a  fixed  salary,  sufficient  to  support  the  dignity  of 
so  important  an  employment,  independent  of  the  pleasure  of 
the  inhabitants;  and,  in  our  humble  opinion,  ought  to  be  a 
person  of  good  fortune,  distinction,  and  experience. 

By  this  means,  a  general  contribution  of  men  or  money 
may  be  raised  upon  the  several  colonies,  in  proportion  to  their 
respective  abilities.493 

These  recommendations  were  seriously  considered 
and  the  plan  so  far  matured  that  the  Earl  of  Stair 
was  offered  the  office  of  captain-general;  but  he  re 
fused,494  and  the  plan  was  abandoned.  It  is  of  inter 
est  chiefly  as  an  indication  of  the  persistence  of  the 
ideas  which  led  to  the  Bellomont  commission.  The 
plan,  however,  shows  some  improvement  over  the 
earlier  one.  The  proposed  governor-general  would 
have  occupied  a  position  in  the  colonies  as  a  whole 

493  !(•  was  jn  thjs  connection  that  the  Board  proposed  that  the  president 
of  the  Board  of  Trade  should  be  charged  with  the  execution  of  all  orders 
concerning  the  colonies,  which  would  have  made  that  officer  a  full-fledged 
colonial  minister.     Cf.  the  similar  proposal  of  Martin  Bladen  in  1726,  in 
North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  vol.  ii,  634. 

494  Chalmers,  George.  Introduction  to  the  Revolt,  vol.  ii,  43. 


216        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

similar  to  that  of  each  governor  in  his  respective  gov 
ernment.  The  position  of  the  councilors  who  were 
to  be  delegated  from  each  colony  is  not  clear,  as  it 
is  not  told  who  was  to  select  them,  what  their  powers 
should  be,  or  whether  they  were  to  have  power  to 
bind  the  colonies  which  they  represented.  Con 
fessedly  the  plan  was  patterned  after  the  government 
in  the  Leeward  Islands,  where  conditions  were  quite 
different  from  those  on  the  continent  of  America. 

Schemes  for  the  formation  of  some  central  govern 
ment  for  America  were  also  proposed  by  various  per 
sons  interested  in  the  welfare  of  the  colonies.  One 
of  these  was  sent  from  England  to  Governor  Clarke 
of  New  York,  we  are  not  told  by  whom.  He  showed 
it  to  his  successor,  Governor  Clinton,  who  felt  under 
the  necessity  of  writing  at  once  to  Newcastle,  in  order 
to  express  his  disapproval  of  the  plan.495  The  scheme 
proposed  the  raising  of  a  fund  by  means  of  a  general 
stamp  tax  in  America,  the  proceeds  of  which  should 
be  used  to  defray  the  expenses  of  a  governor-general 
and  his  establishment  and  to  provide  for  the  general 
defense.  The  scheme  is  mentioned  in  this  connec 
tion,  only  because  it  is  so  similar  to  the  one  proposed 
by  Martin  Bladen  in  1726  that  it  may  well  be  con 
sidered  a  paraphrase  of  his  plan. 

The  Board  made  no  further  definite  proposals  for 
union,  until  the  approach  of  the  French  and  Indian 
War  rendered  some  concerted  action  necessary.  In 
August,  1753,  general  instructions  were  sent  to  the 
governors,  warning  them  of  the  danger  from  the 
French  encroachments  and  directing  them  to  main- 

495  Letter  of  December  13,  1744,  in  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol. 
vi,  268. 


IMPERIALISTIC  POLICY  OF  THE  BOARD      217 

tain  regular  correspondence  with  each  other.  In 
case  one  colony  should  be  attacked,  the  governors  of 
the  others  were  directed  to  take  prompt  measures  for 
its  relief.496 

This  was  followed  by  instructions  to  the  governor 
of  New  York  to  call  a  conference  at  Albany  for  the 
purpose  of  making  a  treaty  with  the  Six  Nations. 
Circular  letters  were  also  sent  to  the  executives  of 
Massachusetts,  New  Hampshire,  New  Jersey,  Mary 
land,  Pennsylvania,  and  Virginia,  by  which  they  were 
notified  of  the  meeting  and  requested  to  send  commis 
sioners  to  it.  The  purpose  of  this  gathering  was 
solely  to  arrange  a  treaty  with  the  Indians,  and  the 
commissioners  were  not  asked  to  consider  plans  for  a 
confederation.497  One  clause  of  the  instructions  to 
Governor  Osborn,  however,  indicates  that  the  Board, 
no  longer  looked  upon  the  colonies  as  isolated  gov 
ernments  independent  of  each  other.  He  was 

To  take  care  that  all  the  provinces  be  (if  practicable) 
comprised  in  one  general  treaty  to  be  made  in  His  Majesty's 
name  it  appearing  to  us  that  the  practice  of  each  province 
making  a  separate  treaty  for  itself  in  its  own  name  is  very 
improper  and  may  be  attended  with  great  inconveniency  to 
His  Majesty's  service.498 

The  meeting  at  Albany  was  held  as  directed,  a 
treaty  with  the  Six  Nations  was  negotiated,  and  the 
plan  of  union  for  which  it  has  become  famous  was 
promulgated.  Five  days  before  the  conference  at 

496  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  vi,  794. 

497  Letter  of  September  18,  1753,  in  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol. 
vi,  802.     In  a  letter  to  Governor  De  Lancey,  July  5,   1754,  however,  the 
Board  expresses  a  hope  that  the  commissioners  at  Albany  may  agree  upon 
some  plan  of  union.     Ibid.,  846. 

8oi> 


2i8        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

Albany  was  opened,  Secretary  Robinson  requested 
the  Board  of  Trade  to  prepare  a 

Plan  of  general  concert  to  be  ent'red  into  by  His  Majesty's 
several  colonies  upon  the  continent  [for  their  mutual  defense, 
in  order]  that  the  same  may  be  sent  to  the  several  governors 
of  His  Majesty's  colonies  in  North  America.499 

The  Board  had  its  plan  completed  in  a  short  time  and 
submitted  it  to  the  king,  August  9,  1754.  Although 
it  could  not  have  been  put  in  operation  soon  enough 
to  meet  the  exigencies  of  the  approaching  struggle, 
and  the  Board  held  out  no  delusions  on  this  point, 
it  is  of  sufficient  interest  to  merit  careful  considera 
tion. 

(NjThis  plan  of  union500  was  avowedly  based  upon 
military  necessity,  and    the  only  organs  of    central 

[government  it  proposed  to  create  were  of  a  military 
nature.  The  governors  of  each  province  were  to  be 
instructed  to  secure  the  appointment  by  the  councilr 
and  assembly  of  a  commissioner,  acceptable  to  the 
governor.  These  commissioners  were  to  meet  at 
New  York  to  formulate  details  for  the  military  es 
tablishment,  such  as  the  number  of  forts  necessary 
for  the  proper  defense  of  the  frontier,  the  probable 
garrison  required  for  each,  and  the  cost  of  mainte 
nance.  To  enable  them  to  do  this,  they  were  to  be 
furnished  with  authentic  copies  of  each  colony's  ex 
penditure  for  twenty  years  past.  Having  determined 
the  regular  establishment  required  in  time  of  peace, 
they  were  to  apportion  the  cost  in  men  and  money 
upon  the  various  colonies  in  accordance  with  the 
ability  of  each  to  bear  the  burden. 

499  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  vi,  844. 
soo  _  nid.t  902-906. 


IMPERIALISTIC  POLICY  OF  THE  BOARD      219 

The  head  of  the  new  military  establishment  was  a 
commander-in-chief  and  commissary-general  for  In 
dian  Affairs,  who  was  to  be  appointed  by  the  crown 
and  given  a  fixed  salary  which  was  to  be  charged  up 
on  the  regular  establishment.  No  central  treasurer 
or  taxing  machinery  was  provided,  but  the  command 
er-in-chief  was  to  be  empowered  to  draw  upon  the 
treasurer  of  each  colony  for  its  quota  of  the  regular 
annual  charges.  These  warrants  were  to  be  paid  by 
the  treasurer  upon  whom  they  were  drawn  from  any 
moneys  in  his  hands,  and  if  he  should  not  have  suffi 
cient  funds  to  pay  the  drafts,  he  was  required  to  bor 
row  the  amount  at  once  on  the  credit  of  the  colony. 
The  commander-in-chief  was  to  submit  annually  to 
each  colony  an  attested  statement  of  his  expenditures, 
and  also  transmit  a  copy  of  the  same  to  the  exchequer 
in  England. 

A  curious  provision  was  made  for  emergencies.  In 
all  cases  of  invasion  or  other  grave  danger  which 
should  require  a  greater  military  force  than  the  regu 
lar  establishment  afforded,  the  colony  attacked  should 
furnish  an  estimate  of  the  probable  extra  charges  re 
quired  for  its  defense.  Copies  of  this  estimate  were 
then  to  be  sent  to  the  governor  of  each  colony,  to  be 
laid  before  his  council  and  assembly.  As  soon  as 
such  copies  were  received  by  a  colony,  a  commissioner 
should  be  appointed,  who  should  meet  similar  com 
missioners  from  other  colonies  wherever  the  com 
mander-in-chief  should  designate.  Representatives 
from  five  colonies  constituted  a  quorum,  with  power 
to  revise  the  estimate  furnished  by  the  colony  in  dan 
ger  and  apportion  the  charges  upon  each  colony.  As 


220        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

soon  as  this  was  done,  the  commander-in-chief  was 
authorized  to  draw  upon  the  several  treasurers  for 
the  quotas,  in  which  case  his  warrants  had  to  be  hon 
ored  just  the  same  as  those  for  the  regular  establish 
ment. 

The  plan  was  to  be  put  into  operation  by  action  of 
the  colonies  themselves.  The  commissioners,  as  soon 
as  they  could  agree  upon  the  financial  details  of  the 
scheme,  were  to  draw  up  a  formal  convention.  This 
was  then  to  be  transmitted  to  each  colony 

To  be  forthwith  laid  before  the  governors,  councils,  and  as 
semblies,  who  are  to  take  the  same  into  immediate  consid 
eration,  and  having  made  such  alterations  therein  or  addi 
tions  thereto  as  they  shall  think  necessary,  shall  return  them 
to  the  commissioners  within  two  months,  and  wrhen  all  the 
copies  shall  have  been  returned  the  commissioners  shall  re 
sume  their  deliberations :  and  having  finally  settled  the  whole, 
the  convention  shall  be  fairly  drawn  up  and  signed  by  each 
commissioner  and  transmitted  hither  in  order  to  be  laid  before 
His  Majesty  for  his  approbation.501 

It  should  be  noted  that  the  final  action  by  the  colo 
nies  was  to  be  taken  by  their  commissioners,  upon 
whom  the  various  amendments  which  each  colony 
might  offer  were  not  binding.  Seven  commissioners 
constituted  a  quorum  and  were  competent  to  make 
decisions  which,  when  ratified  by  the  crown,  should 
be  binding  upon  the  whole.  Thus  seven  of  the  orig 
inal  thirteen  colonies  could  have  adopted  a  form  of 
union,  which  the  other  six  would  have  been  com 
pelled  to  accept. 

Only  as  a  last  resort  did  the  Board  contemplate 
establishing  this  military  government  by  act  of  Par 
liament. 


501  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  vi,  905. 


IMPERIALISTIC  POLICY  OF  THE  BOARD      221 

If  however  it  should  be  found  upon  trial  that  this  meas 
ure  should  be  defeated  by  any  of  the  colonies  either  refusing 
or  neglecting  to  enter  into  a  consideration  of  the  points  re 
ferred  to  their  deliberation;  or,  after  they  are  settled,  by  re 
fusing  to  raise  such  supplies  as  are  proposed  by  this  plan  to 
be  the  fund  for  the  execution  of  it :  We  see  no  other  method 
that  can  be  taken,  but  that  of  an  application  for  an  interposi 
tion  of  the  authority  of  Parliament.502 

This  plan  deviates  from  that  of  1721  by  omitting 
the  council  for  the  governor-general  and  by  not  giv 
ing  him  any  control  over  civil  matters.  His  powers 
were  limited  to  military  affairs  and  questions  of  In 
dian  relations.  The  plan  does,  however,  show  a  very 
clear  comprehension  of  the  jealous  regard  of  each 
colony  for  its  own  special  privileges.  Halifax  says: 

We  have  endeavored  as  much  as  possible  to  adapt  the  plan 
to  the  constitution  of  the  colonies,  and  to  form  it  as  unex 
ceptionable  in  point  of  powers  invested  in  the  commander- 
in-chief  as  the  nature  of  the  thing,  and  the  design  of  uniting 
the  colonies  under  one  general  direction  would  admit  of, 

and  adds  that  the  chief  executive  would  not  be  em 
powered 

To  draw  upon  any  province  for  one  shilling  more  than  the 
commissioners  from  each  colony  shall  have  agreed  to  be  the 
just  proportion  of  expense  which  each  colony  is  to  bear.503 

It  is  evident  that  Halifax  was  endeavoring  not  to 
arouse  any  fear  on  the  part  of  the  colonists  that  their 
cherished  local  independence,  especially  in  financial 
matters,  might  be  endangered. 

The  absence  of  a  central  legislative  body  is  per 
haps  the  strangest  feature  in  the  scheme,  but  the  coun 
cil  of  commissioners  would  supply  its  place.  The 

502  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  vi,  902. 

803  Letter  of  Halifax  to  Newcastle,  August  15,  1754,  in  British  Museum 
Additional  Manuscripts,  33726,  f.  243. 


222        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

whole  scheme  is  very  incomplete  as  a  plan  for  estab 
lishing  a  general  government  for  the  colonies,  and  in 
this  respect  is  in  strong  contrast  with  the  plan  of 
union  which  was  being  drafted  at  Albany. 

Both  plans  suffered  a  similar  fate;  that  of  the 
Board  was  apparently  never  submitted  to  the  colonies 
for  their  consideration;  and  the  Board  of  Trade  laid 
the  Albany  plan  before  the  king  with  the  remark, 

The  commissioners  having  agreed  upon  a  plan  of  union, 
which,  as  far  as  their  sense  and  opinion  of  it  goes,  is  com 
plete  in  itself,  we  shall  not  presume  to  make  any  observa 
tions  upon  it,  but  transmit  it  simply  for  Your  Majesty's  con 
sideration. 

It  could  not  have  done  more;  for  the  plan  was  not 
officially  before  the  Board  and  could  not  be  until  it 
had  been  adopted  by  the  separate  colonies.504 

From  the  foregoing  account,  it  is  seen  that,  as  far  as 
devising  a  central  government  for  the  colonies  was 
concerned,  the  Board  showed  very  little  foresight  or 
creative  genius.  Its  plans  were  usually  hastily  drawn 
in  the  hour  of  danger,  and  were  really  but  little  more 
than  temporary  makeshifts  to  meet  an  emergency. 
The  plan  of  1721,  alone,  shows  evidences  of  a  desire 
to  create  an  effective  central  government,  and  the  first 
provision  of  that  contemplated  the  reduction  of  all 
the  colonies  to  the  condition  of  royal  provinces.  If 
the  Board  of  Trade  had  any  continuous  policy  on  the 
question  of  union,  it  was  that  embraced  in  the  Bello- 
mont  commission,  but  it  is  difficult  to  trace  even  that 
in  the  plan  of  1754. 

604  Representation  on  the  proceedings  at  Albany,  October  29,  1754,  in 
New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  vi,  917.  Cf.  McDonald's  Select 
Charters,  252-253 ;  also  Beer's  British  Colonial  Policy,  22-23. 


IMPERIALISTIC  POLICY  OF  THE  BOARD      223 

As  compared  with  its  success  in  dealing  with  the 

•  judiciary,  the  plans  of  the  Board  for  securing  a  union 
of  the  colonies  must  be  considered  failures.  Its  pol- 

/  icy  in  this  particular  was  too  imperialistic,  as  the 
schemes  which  it  proposed  placed  all  control  in  the 
hands  of  the  crown  officers,  and  left  so  little  space  for 
initiative  on  the  part  of  the  colonies  that  the  latter 
would  not  accept  them.  Judging  by  its  attitude  to- 

=  ward  the  judiciary  and  a  fixed  civil  list,  the  Board 
would  have  preferred  no  central  government  at  all  to 

\  one  that  might  get  out  of  hand,  and  in  that  respect  its 

i  •  • 

policy  was  consistent. 


V.  TREATMENT  OF  COLONIAL 
LEGISLATION 

The  royal  veto 

None  of  the  colonial  governments  was  complete 
in  itself;  all  were  subordinate  to  the  central  power 
in  legislation,  as  well  as  in  other  matters.  Colonial 
laws  had  to  be  transmitted  to  England  and  submitted 
to  the  crown  for  approval.  Royal  provinces  were 
expected  to  transmit  their  laws  rather  promptly,  ( 
while  charter  and  proprietary  colonies  had  special 
privileges  in  the  matter.  Connecticut,  Rhode  Island, 
and  Maryland  were  not  required  by  their  charters 
to  offer  their  laws  to  the  crown,  nevertheless,  each 
found  it  convenient  to  do  so  when  the  latter  became  * 
insistent.  ,  * » 

The  royal  veto  fell  into  disuse  early  in  the  eight 
eenth  century  as  far  as  laws  passed  by  parliament 
were  concerned,  but  was  continued  in  regard  to  colo 
nial  laws.  In  the  case  of  royal  provinces,  a  law  could 
be  disallowed  by  the  crown  at  any  time,  even  many 
years  after  it  had  gone  into  effect;  the  only  limita-  \ 
tion  being  that  laws  once  approved  were  forever  be1 
yond  the  royal  control.  In  the  charter  colonies, 
where  any  veto  was  provided  for,  the  time  within  } 
which  it  could  be  exercised  was  limited  by  the  terms 
of  the  charter,  and  varied  from  six  months  for  Penn 
sylvania  laws  to  three  years  for  those  of  Massachu- 


226        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

/  setts.     A  failure  to  veto  within  the  limited  period 
had  the  effect  of  a  positive  approval,  and  tied  the 

[  hands  of  the  crown  for  the  future.605 

Some  laws  contained  a  clause  suspending  the  oper 
ation  of  the  law  until  it  was  formally  approved  in 
England.  In  such  cases  the  royal  disapproval  was 
practically  the  same  as  a  veto  by  the  colonial  governor 
or  by  any  other  executive,  except  that  it  could  be 
postponed  indefinitely,  and  a  failure  to  act  had  all  the 
effect  of  a  positive  negation  of  the  law.  Because  of 
the  delays  accompanying  laws  so  drawn,  colonial  leg 
islatures  consented  to  such  clauses  reluctantly  and 
then  only  as  a  last  resort  in  securing  the  desired  legis 
lation. 

The  great  majority  of  the  laws  were  drawn  in  the 
usual  way  and,  if  signed  by  the  governor,  went  into 
immediate  operation,  and  continued  in  force  until 
they  expired  by  limitation  or  repeal.  The  royal  dis 
approval  of  such  a  law  is  very  different,  both  in  form 
and  in  effect,  from  what  is  usually  known  as  a  veto. 
A  veto  prevents  a  proposed  law  from  going  into  ef 
fect,  while  the  great  majority  of  colonial  laws  re 
ferred  to  here  were  already  in  force  and  would  so 
continue.  The  royal  disapproval  of  such  a  law  con 
sequently  had  the  effect  of  a  legislative  repeal:  all 
acts  already  done  under  the  authority  of  a  law  of  this 
kind  were  valid,  but  the  act  itself  terminated  with 
the  day  of  its  disapproval.  In  this  respect  the  action 
was  also  different  from  a  judicial  invalidation  of  a 
law;  for  in  such  cases  no  action  under  color  of  such 
a  law  is  legal,  while  colonial  laws  were  legal  during 

505  See  the  terms  of  the  charters,  in  Poore's  Charters  and  Constitutions. 


TREATMENT  OF  COLONIAL  LEGISLATION   227 

the  period  of  their  operation.  The  following  dis 
cussion  deals  primarily  with  the  royal  repeal,  which 
may  well  be  described  by  the  term  disallowance, 
rather  than  with  the  veto. 

During   the   period   covered   by   this   discussion, 
nearlv  four  hundred  different  laws  from  the  conti- 

*• 

nental  American  colonies  alone  were  disallowed  by 
the  crown.506  As  there  were  probably  as  many  more 
from  the  other  colonies,  it  is  at  once  apparent  that 
the  British  government  was  pretty  active  in  its  con 
sideration  of  colonial  laws. 

The  Declaration  of  Independence  lays  the  responsi 
bility  for  the  royal  vetoes  at  the  door  of  the  king,  but 
probably  unjustly.  Although  every  Order  in  Council 
for  the  disallowance  of  a  law  stated  that  it  was  done 
by  "the  King  in  Council,"  the  king4iad  nothing  to  do 
with  the  matter  personally.  The  phrase  is  only  one 
of  the  numerous  fictions  of  the  British  government. 
The  real  work  of  considering  colonial  laws  was  done 
by  the  Board  of  Trade,  and  the  final  action  was  only 
recorded  as  done  by  the  king  in  the  presence  of  and 
with  the  advise  of  his  Privy  Council.  Hence  udis-  , 
allowed  by  the  King  in  Council"  must  be  understood 
to  mean  by  the  Board  of  Trade  on  the  advise  of  able 
legal  opinion  and  finally  ratified  by  the  Privy  Coun-  ; 
cil.  As  will  be  shown  later,  this  action  corresponded 
very  closely  to  that  of  a  careful  court  of  record,  rather 
than  to  the  hasty,  arbitrary  action  of  an  irresponsible 
individual. 

The  Board  of  Trade  was  thus  charged  with  the 

BOG  This  does  not  include  laws  which  had  suspending  clauses  and  which 
were  not  approved  in  England. 


228        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

consideration  of  colonial  laws,  and  practically  every 
approval  or  disapproval  was  made  upon  its  recom: 
mendation.  This  proved  one  of  its  most  effective 
means  of  enforcing  its  authority  in  the  colonies.  Here 
was  a  power  to  control  colonial  affairs,  far  removed 
from  the  exigencies  of  local  politics  and  the  petty 
shortcomings  of  colonial  governors.  While  every 
law  was  considered  individually,  the  Board  was  evi 
dently  guided  by  general  principles  in  refusing  its 
approval  or  recommending  a  disallowance.  These 
were  based  upon  a  consideration  of  the  proper  field 
for  colonial  legislation,  the  relations  of  the  colonies  to 
each  other  and  to  the  mother  country,  and  upon  a  de 
sire  to  protect  the  colonists  themselves  from  ill  ad 
vised  legislation. 

One  of  the  foremost  reasons  for  the  disallowance 
of  laws  was  that  they  encroached  upon  the  royal  pre 
rogative;  that  is,  they  tended  to  hamper  the  home 
government  or  lessen  its  authority  over  local  officials 
or  governments.  Good  illustrations  of  such  laws  are 
the  New  Jersey  and  the  New  York  triennial  acts,507 
and  the  North  Carolina  biennial  act.508  Both  were 

507  In  reporting  on  the  first  of  these  the  Board  said:     "We  take  leave  to 
observe  that  this  is  an  Act  of  so  very  extraordinary  nature  importing  a 
great  change  in  the  constitution  of  the  province  of  New  Jersey."  —  Repre 
sentation  of  the  Board,  June  23,  1731,  in  C.O.  5,  996,  pp.  270-273.    Repealed, 
November  25,  1731.    See:  Privy  Council  Register,  "George  II,"  vol.  ii,  450, 
470,  478-480.    In  reporting  on  the  second  of  these  Francis  Fane  said:    "I  beg 
leave  to  observe  to  your  Lordships,  that  I  think  this  act  a  very  high  infringe 
ment  upon  the  prerogative  of  the  crown;  for  it  takes  away  that  undoubted 
right,  which  the  crown  has  always  exercised  of  calling  and  continuing  the 
Assembly  of  this  colony  at  such  times  and  so  long  as  it  was  thought  necessary 
for  the  publick  service."  —  Report  to  the  Board,  July  20,  1738,  in  New  York 
Colonial  Documents,  vol.  vi,  129-130.     This  act  was  repealed,  November  30, 
1738.     See:  Privy  Council  Register,  "George  II,"  vol.  vi,  34. 

508  Repealed,  July  21,  1737.     C.O.  5,  323,  pp.  257-258;   Privy  Council 
Register,  "George  II,"  vol.  v,  228,  234,  256. 


TREATMENT  OF  COLONIAL  LEGISLATION   229 

objectionable  because,  in  providing  for  regular  meet 
ings  of  the  assemblies,  they  took  away  from  the  gov 
ernor  his  power  to  summon,  prorogue,  and  dissolve 
the  local  legislatures.509 

Inadequate  or  unnecessary  military  laws,  such  as 
those  passed  by  Pennsylvania  in  1755,  come  in  this 
group,  because  they  were  looked  upon  as  hampering 
rather  than  aiding  the  military  operations,  and  were 
consequently  disallowed.510 

Other  acts  which  more  specifically  come  under  this 
general  head  were  those  regulating  the  duties  of  or 
taking  away  the  income  of  a  patent  officer,511  chang 
ing  his  commission,512  or  acts  which  limited  the  ap 
pointing  or  executive  power  of  such  officers.513  Others 

509  An  act  passed  by  the  legislature  of  Jamaica,  in  1741,  providing  for 
triennial  assemblies,  was  also  promptly  disallowed.     See:  Board  of  Trade, 
Jamaica,  66,  pp.  108-112. 

510  One  of  these  purported  to  extend  to  Pennsylvania  the  provisions  of 
the   Mutiny  Act  which   regulated   the   quartering  of  soldiers   in  England. 
The  other  regulated  enlistments  in  the  colony  and  established  rules  for  the 
employment  of  the  provincial  troops.     C.O.  5,  1295,  pp.  218-223. 

511  See  the  New  Jersey  Act  of  1714  to  enforce  the  ordinance  regulating 
fees,  cited  in  C.O.  5,  996,  pp.  108-110.     Repealed,  January  20,  1722.     See: 
Privy  Council  Register,  "George  I,"  vol.  iii,  463.     See  also  the  North  Caro 
lina  Act  of  1740  for  the  appointment  of  clerks  for  the  county  courts,  cited 
in  Report  of  the  Board,  October  14,  1742,  C.O.  5,  323,  pp.  294-296.     Re 
pealed,  January  19,  1743.     See:  Privy  Council  Register,  "George  II,"  vol. 
vii,  283,  293.     The  South  Carolina  Act  of  1736  regulating  fees  of  public 
officers  reduced  the  income  of  patent  officers,  and  for  this  reason  was  dis 
allowed.     See:  C.O.  5,  401,  pp.  202-204;   Privy  Council  Register,  "George 
II,"   vol.   v,   180-209.     Numerous  other   acts   of    a   similar   character   were 
repealed  for  the  above  reason. 

512  The  various  acts  to  change  the  commissions  of  the  judges  come  under 
this  head.     The  North  Carolina  judiciary  act  of  1760  is  typical  of  all,  and 
the  objections  made  to  it  are  similar  to  those  already  cited.     See  the  report 
of  the  Board  on  this  act,  December  3,  1761,   in  C.O.  5,  325,  pp.   171-185; 
Privy  Council  Register,  "George  III,"  vol.  i,  606,  6n,  616. 

513  A  Virginia   act  of  1705   "declaring  who  should   hold  office,"   made 
residence  within  the  colony  for  three  years  one  of  the  requirements.     This 


230        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

sought  to  change  the  charters  of  towns  incorporated 
by  charter  direct  from  the  king,  as  in  the  case  of  Nor 
folk,  Virginia.514  Perhaps  oddest  of  all  was  the  disal 
lowance  of  Virginia  laws  appointing  and  regulating 
fairs,  on  the  ground  that  they  encroached  upon  the 
prerogatives  of  the  governor.515 

Since  most  of  the  encroachments  upon  the  preroga 
tive  were  through  the  power  of  the  assembly  to  con 
trol  the  purse;  the  efforts  of  the  Board  to  prevent 
them  usually  came  to  naught,  as  the  assembly  could 
frequently  accomplish  by  indirect  means  what  it  was 
forbidden  to  do  by  direct  legislation.  There  were 
occasions,  however,  when  the  Board  used  its  power  of 
disallowance  to  prevent  encroachments  of  the  assem 
bly  through  its  abuse  of  the  money  bill.  In  1741  the 
Jamaica  assembly  passed  a  triennial  act,  which  the 
governor  refused  to  sign  because  it  contained  no  sus 
pending  clause. 

After  which  the  assembly  compelled  him  to  give  his  consent 
to  it  without  such  a  clause  by  keeping  back  an  annual  bill 
usually  passed  for  raising  several  sums  of  money  for  defray 
ing  the  necessary  charges  of  the  government,  and  we  are  of 
opinion  that  this  practice  which  .  .  .  is  so  fundamentally 

was  found  to  restrict  the  operations  of  the  surveyor  of  the  customs,  Wm. 
Keith,  and  was  disallowed.  See:  the  report  of  the  Board,  July  6,  1715,  in 
C.O.  5,  1364,  pp.  224-229;  Privy  Council  Register,  "George  I,"  vol.  i,  274. 

514  Representation  of  the  Board,  June  14,  1754,  in  C.O.  5,  1367,  p.  67. 
Repealed,  June  21,  following.     See:  Privy  Council  Register,  "George  II," 
vol.  xv,  148,  153,  161. 

515  Two  acts  of  this  character  were  disallowed,  October  31,  1751.     The 
first  was  entitled,  "An  Act  for  allowing  fairs  to  be  kept  in  the  Town  of 
Suffolk,   and  preventing  hogs   and  goats  going   at  large   therein,   and    for 
altering  the  times  of  holding  fairs  in  the  Town  of  New  Castle."     The  sec 
ond  was,  "An  Act  for  establishing  a  town  in  Augusta  County,  and  allowing 
fairs  to  be  held  therein."     See:  C.O.  5,  1366,  p.  498 ;  Privy  Council  Register, 
"George  II,"  vol.  xiii,  347. 


TREATMENT  OF  COLONIAL  LEGISLATION   231 

destructive  of  your  Majesty's  authority  ought  to  be  discouraged 
whenever  it  occurs.516 

Thus  the  Board  could  and  did  prevent  forbidden 
legislation  from  remaining  on  the  statute  books,  even 
though  the  colonial  governors  were  forced  to  consent 
to  it. 

Ecclesiastical  reasons  led  to  the  repeal  of  several 
laws.  Some  of  these  concerned  the  Church  of  Eng 
land,  such  as  laws  for  the  disposal  of  parish  prop 
erty,517  laws  reducing  the  revenues  of  the  ministers  of 
the  church,  as  in  the  famous  "Parson's  Cause"  in  Vir 
ginia,518  or  laws  which  provided  for  the  punishment 
of  ministers  guilty  of  immoral  conduct.519  Other  laws 
encroached  upon  the  general  freedom  of  worship  in 
the  colonies  or  gave  special  privileges  to  certain 
sects.  An  act  of  Maryland,  passed  in  1696,  was  re- 

516  Representation  of  the  Board  for  the   repeal  of  the  triennial   act  of 
Jamaica,  in  Board  of  Trade,  Jamaica,  66,  pp.  108-112. 

517  A  New  York  act  of  1733,  which  empowered  the  vestry  of  Jamaica  in 
Queen's  County  to  dispose  of  some  sixty  pounds  which  it  held,  was  disal 
lowed,  August  8,   1734.     Other  acts  permitted  vestries  to  sell   real  estate. 
One  passed  by  Virginia  allowed  the  parish  vestry  of  Bruton  to  sell  certain 
lots  it  owned  in  Williamsburg  and  loan  the  money  on  personal  security. 
The  Board  objected  on  the  ground  that  the  property  had  been  given  for  the 
benefit  of  the  poor,  and  under  the  proposed  plan  it  might  become  lost,  con 
sequently  the  act  was  disallowed,  July  20,  1764.     See:  C.O.  5,  1368,  247-248 ; 
Privy  Council  Register,  "George  II,"  vol.  iv,  6 ;  "George  III,"  vol.  iii,  544. 

518  See  C.O.  5,  1367,  pp.  375-381,  for  the  complaint  of  the  clergy  against 
the  four  laws  changing  their  pay  from  tobacco  to  money,  also  the  action  of 
the  Board  of  Trade  in  the  matter.     Repealed,  August  10,  1759.     See:  Privy 
Council  Register,  "George  II,"  vol.  xviii,  101.     An  act  of  New  York  passed 
in   1700,  which  divided  the  parishes  of  East  Chester  and  West  Chester, 
was  also  rejected  by  the  Board  because  it  lessened  the  remuneration  of  the 
minister.     See:  C.O.  5,  1119,  p.  362. 

519  Act  of  North  Carolina,  passed  in  1760,  entitled:     "An  Act  for  making 
provision  for  an  Orthodox  clergy."     The  main  objections  were  those  of  the 
Bishop  of  London.     See:  C.O.  5,  325,  pp.  201-207.     The  act  was  repealed, 
June  3,  1762.     See:  Privy  Council  Register,  "George  III,"  vol.  ii,  251. 


232        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

pealed  by  the  king,  on  the  recommendation  of  the 
Board,  because  it  discriminated  too  severely  against 
Catholics.520  A  later  law  was  amended  by  the  legis 
lature  on  the  demand  of  the  Board,  for  similar  rea 
sons.521  Other  acts  passed  in  1704  by  the  same  prov 
ince,  one  to  prevent  the  growth  of  popery,  and  the 
other  to  permit,  for  eighteen  months  only,  the  min 
istration  of  Catholic  priests  in  private  families  were 
disallowed  because  they  tended  "to  depopulate  that 
profitable  colony."  522 

The  Board  also  tried  to  prevent  the  persecution  of 
Quakers.  A  law  of  Virginia,  passed  in  1663,  pro 
hibited  the  importation  of  Quakers  and  punished  by 
heavy  fines  their  assembling  for  religious  worship. 
This  law  was  not  discovered  by  the  Board  until  1718, 
but  it  was  then  promptly  disallowed.523  Six  years 
later  two  acts  of  Massachusetts  Bay  were  repealed  by 
the  king,  because  they  taxed  the  Quakers  in  Dart 
mouth  and  Tiverton  unfairly.524  On  the  other  hand 

520  Privy  Council  Register,  "William  III,"  vol.  vi,  396. 

521  This  act  in  its  final  form  was  practically  framed  by  the  Board  and 
enacted  by  the  Maryland  Assembly.    See:  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  13,  14. 
and  15  for  the  history  of  this  act. 

522  January  3,  1706,  the  Board  reported  on  these  acts.     It  stated  that  the 
first  of  them  forbade  the  exercise  of  the  Catholic  religion  even  in  private 
families  and  in  the  most  inoffensive  form,   "which  is  not  your  Majesty's 
intention  as  it  would  tend  to  depopulate  that  profitable  colony."     See:  C.O.  5, 
726,  pp.  356-357- 

523  This  act  provided  that  any  Quaker  more  than  sixteen  years  old,  who 
should  go  from  his  own  house  and  join  in  any  assembly  of  five  or  more 
persons,  should  forfeit  two  hundred  pounds  of  tobacco  for  the  first  offense 
and  five  hundred  pounds  for  the  second,  and  should  be  banished  for  a  third 
offense.     It  also  punished  by  a  fine  of  two  thousand  pounds  of  tobacco  any 
shipmaster  who  brought  into  the  colony  any  Quaker  more  than  fourteen  years 
old.     This  act  was  recommended  for  repeal,  because,  if  enforced,  it  would 
drive  out  of  the  colony  many  industrious  persons  and  because  it  was  not  in 
harmony  with  the  English  toleration  act.     See:  C.O.  5,  1365,  pp.  45-46. 

524  Act  of  1723.     The  Board  in  recommending  the  repeal  of  this  act  held 


TREATMENT  OF  COLONIAL  LEGISLATION   233 

no  unusual  privileges  were  permitted  the  Quakers, 
and  several  laws  of  Pennsylvania  were  vetoed  be 
cause  they  granted  greater  freedom  in  affirmations 
than  were  permitted  by  the  laws  of  England.525  Thus 
the  Board  of  Trade  not  only  protected  the  interests  of 
the  established  church,  but  enforced  such  a  degree 
of  toleration  for  persecuted  sects  as  would  not  inter 
fere  with  colonial  growth  and  prosperity. 

Any  law  which  affected  the  material  interests  of 
the  crown  was  pretty  sure  to  be  disallowed.  This 
fact  made  it  almost  impossible  for  the  assembly  of 
North  Carolina  to  frame  a  quit  rent  law  in  such  a 
way  that  the  Board  would  accept  it.  As  there  was 
little  or  no  coin  in  the  colony,  such  a  law  had  to  pro 
vide  some  equitable  rate  at  which  rents  could  be  paid 
in  commodities.  This  arrangement,  however,  was 
open  to  two  objections.  In  the  first  place,  it  infringed 
the  act  of  Parliament  regulating  the  value  of  foreign 
coins;  and  in  the  second  place,  in  the  opinion  of  the 
Board  values  upon  commodities  were  placed  too 
high.  The  effect  would  be  to  diminish  the  existing 
too  slender  income  of  the  government  and  still 
further  weaken  the  independence  of  the  officials 
whose  salaries  were  paid  from  the  quit  rents  -  per 
haps  this  was  what  the  authors  of  the  acts  intended 

that,  as  the  charter  granted  freedom  of  conscience  to  all  except  Catholics,  and 
the  regular  practice  within  the  colony  was  to  permit  each  congregation  to 
select  its  own  pastor,  it  was  manifestly  unfair  to  tax  a  majority  of  people 
who  were  Quakers  for  the  benefit  of  a  Congregationalist  minister  who  was 
supported  by  only  a  small  minority  of  the  people  in  the  two  towns.  See: 
C.O.  5,  915,  p.  400;  also  the  proceedings  before  the  Privy  Council,  in  Privy 
Council  Register,  "George  I,"  vol.  iv. 

625  Acts  of  this  character  were  repealed  in  1711,  1714,  and  1719.  See: 
C.O.  5,  1292,  pp.  330,  399;  1293,  p.  206;  Privy  Council  Register,  "Anne," 
vol.  v,  293,  and  "George  I,"  vol.  i,  293 ;  Pennsylvania  Statutes  at  Large. 


234        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

to  accomplish.  Consequently  the  Board  disallowed 
every  such  law  prepared  by  the  legislature  of  that 
colony.526  Quit  rent  laws  passed  by  Virginia  527  and 
by  New  York528  met  similar  fates  and  for  similar 
reasons.  If  the  Board  was  unable  to  secure  the  en 
actment  of  effective  laws  for  the  collection  of  quit 
rents,  it  at  least  stood  in  the  way  of  their  confiscation 
by  action  of  the  colonists  themselves. 

The  Board  insisted  that  colonial  laws  should  not 
be  inconsistent  with  the  laws  of  England,  and  always 
submitted  them  to  an  attorney  for  his  opinion  on  this 
point.  Any  conflict  between  them  and  those  laws  of 
England  which  extended  to  America  was  considered 
sufficient  ground  for  a  repeal.  Thus  the  Board  con 
stantly  submitted  the  provincial  laws  to  a  kind  of 
constitutional  test,  and  in  this  way  accustomed  the 
colonists  to  a  limitation  upon  their  local  legislatures, 
similar  to  that  which  was  afterward  embodied  in  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States.  The  laws  passed 

526  The  act  of  1738,  disallowed  in  1740,  was  open  to  several  objections, 
the  most  serious  of  which  turned  upon  the  power  it  gave  a  small  group  of 
men  of  regulating  the  value  of  money,  which  would  have  enabled  them  to 
manipulate  it  in  their  own  interests.     See:  C.O.  5,  323,  pp.  273-276;  North 
Carolina  Colonial  Records,  vol.  iv,  434-435;  Privy  Council  Register,  "George 
II,"  vol.  vii,  162,  177.     The  act  of  1748,  repealed  in  1754,  besides  regulating 
the  payment  in  commodities,  was  especially  unfair  to  the  remaining  pro 
prietary  interest.     It  also  made  twenty  years'  occupancy  of  land   a  valid 
title.     See:  Report  of  the  Board,  March  25,  1754,  in  C.O.  5,  323. 

527  In  recommending  the  repeal  of  the  Virginia  act  of  1720,  the  Board 
said  that  it  "deminished  His  Majesty's  revenue,  and  weakens  the  process 
for  the  crown  in  the  recovery  of  forfeitures  and   arrears  of  quit  rents."  — 
Representation  of  the  Board,  July  18,  1723,  in  C.O.   5,  1365,  p.  253;   also 
Privy  Council  Register,  "George  I,"  vol.  iv,  327. 

sss  T^  main  reason  for  recommending  the  repeal  of  the  New  York  acts 
of  1744  was  that  they  made  the  collection  of  quit  rents  more  difficult.  See: 
New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  vii,  504;  Privy  Council  Register, 
"George  II,"  vol.  viii,  86,  96. 


TREATMENT  OF  COLONIAL  LEGISLATION   235 

by  Parliament  and  binding  upon  all  the  colonies  cor 
responded  to  the  Constitution  and  the  acts  of  Con 
gress.  The  work  of  the  Board  of  Trade  and  its  of 
ficers  in  maintaining  the  supremacy  of  the  general  j 
law,  when  a  local  law  conflicted  with  it,  corresponded 
to  the  action  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States.  The  question  at  issue  was  largely  a  judicial 
one -were  the  laws  in  conflict?  If  they  were,  the 
local  one  must  give  way. 

The  parallel  between  British  colonial  practice  and 
present  day  United  States  practice  is  clear  in  the  case 
of  laws  from  chartered  colonies,  as  the  charter  was  a 
written  constitution.  The  local  legislature  was  lim 
ited  by  the  terms  of  the  grant;  if  a  power  had  not  been 
granted,  it  could  not  be  exercised  legally.  The  law 
of  Rhode  Island  establishing  an  admiralty  court  il 
lustrates  this  point.  The  Board  submitted  the  law  to 
Attorney-general  Northey  for  his  opinion,529  who  re 
ported  that  he  had  examined  the  act  and  the  charter 
of  the  colony  and  was  of  the  opinion  that  the  charter 
gave  the  legislature 

Power  to  erect  only  courts  for  determining  all  actions,  causes, 
matters,  and  things  happening  within  that  island  which  doth 
not  impower  them  to  erect  a  Court  of  Admiralty,  the  juris 
diction  of  such  court  being  of  matters  arising  on  the  high  sea, 
which  is  out  of  the  island.530 

Although  the  charter  did  not  provide  for  a  royal  veto, 
on  the  basis  of  this  report  the  Board  recommended 
the  act  for  disallowance,  which  was  promptly  done 
by  an  Order  in  Council.531 

529  December  2,  1703,  C.Q.  5,  1290,  p.  387. 

530  Northey  to  the  Board,  December  24,  1703,  C.O.  5,  1262. 

531  February,  1704,  'C.O.  5,  1290,  p.  422. 


236        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

The  above  is  rather  an  uncommon  case,  but  it 
brings  out  very  clearly  the  American  idea  of  a  con 
stitutional  test  of  laws  passed  by  a  subordinate  di 
vision  of  the  government.  The  settlement  of  conflicts 
between  laws  passed  by  Parliament  and  acts  of  colo 
nial  legislatures,  unlimited  by  a  specific  charter,  in 
volved  just  as  strictly  a  constitutional  test  as  in  the 
case  cited  from  Rhode  Island.  Tests  of  this  kind  had 
to  be  applied  by  the  legal  advisers  of  the  crown  in 
stead  of  the  administrative  officers ;  consequently  the 
Board  simply  took  the  advice  of  its  counsel  in  such 
matters.  If  their  opinion  was  adverse  to  a  law,  the 
Board  promptly  asked  for  its  repeal. 

The  legislatures  of  all  the  colonies 532  were  made  to 
feel  this  check  upon  their  law-making  powers.  The 
judiciary  act  of  Massachusetts  was  objected  to  on  the 
ground  that  it  infringed  the  right  of  the  Admiralty 
Courts  to  try  cases  without  a  jury,533  and  that  of  Vir 
ginia  because  it  did  not  specifically  recognize  the 
right  of  appeal  to  the  king  in  council.534  Pennsyl 
vania,  New  Jersey,  and  several  other  colonies  at 
tempted  to  establish  rules  for  affirmations  different 
from  those  in  the  acts  of  Parliament,  and  many  of 
their  laws  received  the  royal  veto.535  Other  attempted 

632  \yith  the  possible  exception  of  Rhode  Island ;  Delaware  was  net 
recognized  as  a  separate  province  by  the  British  government. 

533  "The  Act  entituled,  An  Act   for  establishing  of  Courts,  providing, 
amongst  other  things,  that  all  matters  and  issues  in  fact  shall  be  tried  by  a 
jury  of  twelve  men,  has,  in  that  particular,  been  looked  upon  to  be  directly 
contrary  to  the  intention  of  the  act  of  Parliament     ...     by  which  it  is 
provided  that  all  causes  relating  to  the  breach  of  the  acts  of  trade  may,  at 
the  pleasure  of  the  officer  or-  informer,  be  tried  in  the  Court  of  Admiralty, 
etc."  — Board  to  Bellomont,  February  3,   1699,  in  Massachusetts  Acts  and 
Resolves,  vol.  i,  287. 

534  Chalmers,  George.  Introduction  to  the  Revolt,  vol.  i,  318. 

535  Objections  were  made  to  both  Georgia  and  South  Carolina  laws  be- 


TREATMENT  OF  COLONIAL  LEGISLATION   237 

variations  from  English  law,  to  which  the  Board  ob 
jected,  were  laws  establishing  novel  rules  of  proce 
dure  in  the  courts,536  laws  defining  the  privileges  of 
freemen,537  and  criminal  laws  with  uncomn*oii -meth 
ods  of  punishment.538 

The  two  great  classes  of  laws,  however,  which  were 
repealed  because  they  conflicted  with  the  laws  of 
England  were  those  creating  bills  of  credit  or  regu 
lating  their  value  in  coin,  and  laws  governing  the 

cause  they  departed  from  the  rules  laid  down  in  the  Toleration  Act.  Georgia 
sought  to  extend  the  privileges  granted  to  Quakers  to  all  protestants  and 
dissenters  by  an  act  passed  in  1756,  but  the  act  was  disallowed.  See: 
Pennsylvania  Archives,  first  series,  vol.  i,  155-158;  C.O.  5,  673,  pp.  228-229. 
sse  A  great  variety  of  laws  of  this  character  were  disallowed.  A  South 
Carolina  act  of  1759,  regulating  the  proof  of  wills,  permitted  methods  of 
proof  not  allowed  by  the  laws  of  England  [C.O.  5,  404,  pp.  59-61].  Methods 
of  selecting  jurors,  unfamiliar  to  English  lawyers,  were  attempted  by  several 
of  the  colonies  with  the  usual  result.  The  treatment  of  the  Georgia  act  of 
1756  is  typical  of  all  [C.O.  5,  673,  pp.  224-231].  Several  colonies  passed 
laws  greatly  extending  the  jurisdiction  of  county  courts.  These  were  ob 
jected  to  because  of  the  ignorance  of  the  county  judges.  The  North  Caro 
lina  act  of  1755  illustrates  both  the  laws  and  their  treatment  [C.O.  5,  324,  pp. 
299-308].  Pennsylvania  attempted  to  limit  grand  jury  presentments,  but  the 
Board  objected  [C.O.  5,  1291,  p.  266;  Privy  Council  Register,  "Anne,"  vol. 
iy>  451]-  In  ^726  South  Carolina  attempted  to  make  the  first  action  in  civil 
cases  a  capias  instead  of  a  summons,  but  the  British  lawyers  objected  to  tha' 
innovation  [C.O.  5,  401,  pp.  28-30]. 

537  Three  acts  of  Pennsylvania  for  this  purpose  were  repealed  in  1706, 
1714,  and  1719  because  they  were  held  to  interfere  in  some  measure  with 
the  work  of  the  admiralty  courts.     See:  C.O.  5,  1291,  p.  283;  1292,  p.  399; 
1293,  pp.  206,  ff. 

538  More  laws  of  Pennsylvania  than  of  any  other,  or  perhaps  all  of  the 
other  colonies,  were  objected  to  because  of  the  unusual  punishments  provided. 
These  included  divorce  for  the  injured  husband  or  wife  as  a  punishment 
for  adultery,  marriage  for  those  guilty  of  fornication,  castration  for  rape  and 
bestiality,  selling  for  fourfold  the  value  of  the  property  destroyed  for  in 
cendiarism,  the  death  penalty  for  manslaughter,  and  the  same  penalty  for 
false  swearing  as  the  person  against  whom  the  evidence  was  given  would 
have  suffered  had  he  been  convicted.     Some  of  these  were  reenacted  with 
amendments  so  as  to  meet  the  objections  of  the  Board,  but  others  were  again 
repealed  by  order  of  that  body.     See:  C.O.  5,  1291,  pp.  254-289 ;  Privy  Coun 
cil  Register,  "Anne,"  vol.  iii,  99-101 ;  Pennsylvania  Statutes  at  Large. 


238        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

descent  of  property.  The  first  class  of  laws  violated 
the  act  of  Parliament  regulating  the  value  of  foreign 
coins  in  the  colonies.  Nearly  every  colony  had  some 
of  its  acts  disallowed  for  this  reason,  because  all  were 
confronted  with  the  problem  of  securing  some  form 
of  circulating  medium.539  The  second  class  is  well 
illustrated  by  Connecticut's  intestate  law  and  by  that 
of  North  Carolina  which  allowed  illegitimate  as 
well  as  legitimate  children  to  inherit  property.  The 
last  was  ordered  repealed  and  the  first  held  invalid, 
although  that  decision  was  finally  reversed.540  Other 
colonies  attempted  to  pass  similar  laws,  but  the  Board 
uniformly  interposed  the  royal  veto.541 

It  was  in  dealing  with  laws  which  were  intended  to 
regulate  commerce,  or  which  laid  duties  upon  im 
ports,  that  the  Board  exercised  its  greatest  control. 
While  its  attitude  was  greatly  influenced  by  the  pre 
vailing  mercantilist  doctrines,  its  reasons  for  repeal 
in  many  cases  are  actuated  by  administrative,  as  well 

539  See:  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  v,  67  and  passim;  Chal 
mers,  George.  Introduction  to  the  Revolt,  vol.  i,  subject,  bills  of  credit. 

540  Connecticut  Historical  Society  Collections,  vol.  iv,   114-115,  143-150, 
and  passim ;  vol.  v,  74-87,  489-494,  and  passim ;  Trumbull.  History  of  Con 
necticut,  vol.  ii,  chap.  iv. 

641  A  Pennsylvania  act  of  this  character  was  disallowed  in  1706  because 
it  was  contrary  to  the  English  law  of  inheritance  [C.O.  5,  1291,  p.  267; 
Privy  Council  Register,  "Anne,"  vol.  iii,  99-101].  Two  laws  of  New 
Hampshire  met  a  similar  fate  the  same  year,  and  for  similar  reasons.  An 
additional  objection  was  made  to  one  of  these  acts,  namely,  that  it  not  only 
altered  the  law  of  descent  but  it  also  applied  to  persons  residing  in  Eng 
land  as  well  as  to  those  in  the  colony  [C.O.  5,  912,  pp.  186-190;  Privy  Coun 
cil  Register,  "Anne,"  vol.  iii,  269].  A  North  Carolina  act  of  1762  for 
the  distribution  of  intestate  estates  was  apparently  drawn  so  as  to  be  in 
entire  agreement  with  the  laws  of  England;  yet,  because  it  failed  to  make 
provision  for  the  legal  representation  of  the  heirs  of  a  dead  child,  the  act 
was  disallowed,  July  20,  1764  [C.O.  5,  325,  pp.  240-241;  Privy  Council 
Register,  "George  III,"  vol.  iii,  514,  544]. 


TREATMENT  OF  COLONIAL  LEGISLATION   239 

as  commercial,  motives.  The  merchants  in  England 
were  extremely  sensitive  about  any  burdens  whatever 
being  laid  upon  their  commerce  with  the  colonies, 
consequently  they  were  always  prepared  to  urge  the 
repeal  of  any  provincial  law  which  they  found  ob 
jectionable.  Usually  the  Board  was  very  prompt  in 
taking  such  action  as  the  merchants  demanded,  but 
sometimes  it  refused.  The  following  are  the  kind  of 
acts  which  were  objected  to. 

In  1700,  the  Board  reported  against  a  law  of 
Massachusetts,  which  included  a  clause  establishing 
sea-ports,  on  the  ground  that  it  encroached  upon  the 
power  granted  to  the  commissioners  of  customs  "to 
appoint  ports  in  all  His  Majesty's  plantations  for  the 
lading  and  unlading"  542  of  enumerated  goods.  The 
power  to  appoint  ports  was  thus  denied  to  the  colony, 
because  the  exercise  of  such  a  power  might  interfere 
with  the  enforcement  of  the  acts  of  trade.  An  act 
regulating  the  building  of  ships  was  repealed  at  the 
same  time  as  the  above  act,  on  the  ground  that  it 
might  subject  British  merchants  who  had  ships  built 
in  the  province  to  inconvenient  regulations.543 
^  Eight  years  later  the  Board  condemned  a  Virginia 
revenue  law  because  it  laid  a  tonnage  duty  in  such  a 
way  as  to  discriminate  in  favor  of  ships  wholly  owned 
within  the  province,  and  made  use  of  a  scheme  for 
estimating  the  tonnage  of  vessels  which  the  mer 
chants  claimed  was  unfair.  The  act  was  promptly 
disallowed.544,  A  little  later  two  acts  of  Maryland, 

542  Massachusetts  Acts  and  Resolves,  vol.  i,  336,  note. 
s±z  —  lbid.,  353,  note. 

544  Representation  of  the  Board,  January  5,   1708,  in  C.O.  5,  1362,  pp. 
275-278;  Privy  Council  Register,  "Anne,"  vol.  iii,  519. 


240        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

one  of  which  regulated  the  size  of  tobacco  hogsheads, 
and  the  other  forbade  cutting  and  defacing  them  in 
loading  upon  ships,  were  disallowed:  the  first  on  the 
complaints  of  ship-owners  that  the  special  size  of 
cask  required  was  different  from  that  in  use  in  Vir 
ginia  and  consequently  would  not  pack  to  advantage 
in  the  holds  of  the  ships;  and  the  second  because  it 
required  a  bond  from  the  shipmaster  to  observe  its 
provisions  and  so  laid  a  burden  upon  British  ship- 
ping."6 

The  next  year  the  Board  had  before  it  the  acts  of 
both  Virginia  and  Maryland  establishing  ports  and 
towns.546  It  had  previously  advised  the  enactment  of 
such  a  law  in  Virginia,  but  not  the  kind  of  a  law 
which  was  passed.  Ports  were  desired  but  not  towns. 
The  colonial  legislatures,  however,  sought  to  develop 
towns  as  well.  The  ports  were  erected  into  boroughs, 
with  markets,  fairs,  merchants'  guilds,  and  special 
exemptions  from  a  portion  of  the  duties  regularly 
paid  by  persons  not  residing  within  their  limits.  To 
encourage  immediate  growth  in  population,  the  resi 
dents  were  also  exempted  from  the  poll-tax  of  to 
bacco  for  a  period  of  fifteen  years.  The  Board  found 
two  serious  objections  to  these  laws.  By  encouraging 


546  Many  of  the  papers  relating  to  Maryland  are  included  with  those  of 
Virginia,  as  in  this  and  the  following  cases.  The  bond  required  was  two 
hundred  pounds  sterling.  The  penalty  for  defacing  a  cask  was  three  pounds 
for  each  cask  or  hogshead  so  injured.  As  the  casks  were  of  such  a  size 
that  screws  had  to  be  used  in  loading  them  into  the  holds  of  vessels,  de 
facing  was  almost  unavoidable.  Representation  of  the  Board,  March  23, 
1708,  in  C.O.  5,  1362,  pp.  291-293;  Privy  Council  Register,  "Anne,"  vol.  iv, 

45- 

546  The  Virginia  act  was  passed  in  1706.  There  were  three  Maryland 
acts;  the  first  passed  in  the  same  year  as  that  of  Virginia,  and  two  addi 
tional  and  supplementary  acts  passed  in  1707  and  in  1708. 


TREATMENT  OF  COLONIAL  LEGISLATION   241 

the  growth  of  towns  they  might  finally  lead  to  the 
development  of  manufacturing,  especially  of  wool 
ens,  and  thus  reduce  the  English  exports  of  goods  of 
that  kind.  By  attracting  persons  to  the  towns  they 
would  diminish  the  number  engaged  in  the  produc-  j 
tion  of  tobacco,  lessen  the  total  crop,  and  so  diminish 
the  export  trade  of  the  provinces.  Thus  English 
trade  would  suffer  a  double  injury.  The  usual  veto 
followed.547 

In  1717  two  more  acts  of  Virginia  received  the 
royal  veto.  One,  passed  in  1713-1714,  was  to  prevent 
frauds  in  tobacco  payments  and  was  held  to  impose  a 
"great  burden'7  upon  trade.548  The  other,  passed  in 
1714,  regulated  the  Indian  trade,  excluding  un 
authorized  persons  from  such  trade.  The  Board  held 
that  this  act  infringed  acts  of  Parliament  preserving 
to  all  British  subjects  the  right  to  trade  with  the  In 
dians,  and  hence  was  essentially  illegal. 

Other  colonies  found  the  Board  obstinate  in  resist 
ing  attempts  to  monopolize  the  Indian  trade  for  their 
own  inhabitants.  In  1729  a  series  of  ten  acts,  which 
had  been  passed  by  New  York  since  1720,  was  dis 
allowed.549  A  few  years  later  a  South  Carolina  ordi 
nance,  which  was  designed  to  assert  the  rights  of  the 

547  This  whole  incident  started  from  a  petition  of  the  merchants  who 
traded  to  Virginia,   asking   the  commissioners  of  customs  to  have  certain 
places  designated  as  ports.     The  matter  came  before  the  Board  of  Trade  in 
1705  and  it  recommended  that  such  action  was  desirable  on  account  of  the 
scattered  settlements  and  large  navigable  rivers  in  that  colony.     Instructions 
were  sent  to  the  governor  to  secure  the  necessary  legislation,  and  the  acts 
described  above  were  passed.     Representation  of  the  Board,  November  30, 
1709,  in  C.O.  5,  1362,  pp.  432  ff;  Privy  Council  Register,  "Anne,"  vol.  iv,  491. 

548  See  the  report  of  Solicitor-general  Thompson  and  the  representation  of 
the  Board,  June  29,  1717,  in  C.O.  5,  1364,  pp.  463-464. 

549  privy  Council  Register,  "George  II,"  vol.  ii,  97-106. 


242        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

people  of  that  colony  to  the  trade  with  the  Creek  and 
Cherokee  Indians,  also  met  the  fatal  objection  of  the 
Board.560  This  opposition  to  colonial  laws  regulating 
the  Indian  trade  probably  did  not  assist  in  the  solu 
tion  of  that  vexed  problem,  but  did  prevent  any  one 
colony  from  solving  it  in  its  own  favor. 

A  Massachusetts  revenue  act  of  1718  laid  higher  du 
ties  upon  English  goods  than  upon  those  from  any  oth 
er  country  or  province,551  and  also  double  duties  upon 
wines  and  other  products  not  imported  directly  from 
the  place  of  their  production,552  provisions  which 
were  discriminations  against  English  commerce.  The 
law  also  discriminated  against  English  ships  by  re 
quiring  all  such  vessels  to  pay  the  powder  duty,  while 
the  ships  of  that  and  the  neighboring  provinces  were 
exempted  from  such  tax.553  Such  a  law  not  only  laid 
a  burden  upon  English  merchants,  but  was  clearly  an 
attempt  to  regulate  foreign  commerce.  The  Board 
lost  no  time  in  laying  it  before  the  king  with  the 
recommendation  that  it  be  disallowed. 

And  forasmuch  as  this  act  seems  designed  to  be  an  annual 
one,  we  would  propose  that  in  case  it  shall  have  been  re- 
enacted  this  year  before  the  said  governor  receives  Your 
Majesty's  orders  on  this  head,  he  may  be  enjoined  forth 
with  to  declare  your  Majesty's  disapprobation  thereof  and 

550  This  act  was  objected  to  because  of  the  way  it  was  passed.     See  the 
report  of  the  Committee  of  the  Privy  Council,  March  18,  1738,  in  Privy 
Council  Register,  "George  II,"  vol.  v,  499. 

551  English  merchandise  was  taxed  at  the  rate  of  twenty  shillings  for 
^     every  hundred  pounds,  cost  value.     Other  goods  were  taxed  but  one  penny 

^     per  pound.     See:  Massachusetts  Acts  and  Resolves,  vol.  ii,  108,  sec.  i. 

552  The  double  duties  had  to  be  paid  by  all  importers  who  were  not  bona 
fide  residents  of  Massachusetts. 

553  Act  passed,  June  28,  1718,  in  Massachusetts  Acts  and  Resolves,  vol.  ii, 
107-112. 

I  /    -'  <     /,  4 


TREATMENT  OF  COLONIAL  LEGISLATION   243 

not  to  permit  the  said  act  or  any  part  of  it  to  be  put  in 
execution.554 

The  recommendation  was  promptly  approved  by  the 
king  in  council  and  orders  issued  in  accordance  there 
with. 

In  the  meantime  other  colonies  had  attempted  to 
pass  similar  laws,  which  caused  the  Board  to  issue 
its  first  special  instruction  to  the  governors  not  to 
enact  any  law  which  would  affect  the  navigation  of 
the  kingdom.555  The  New  York  revenue  act  of  1715 
had  laid  a  tariff  duty  on  all  European  goods.  The 
Board  examined  the  act  and  wrote  Hunter  that  it 
considered  that  particular  clause  objectionable,  and 
that  if  he  could  not  secure  its  repeal,  the  law  would 
be  disallowed.556  Hunter  obtained  the  desired  amend 
ment,  but  protested  against  a  regulation  which  was 
opposed  to  former  practice.657 

A  North  Carolina  revenue  act  laid  a  direct  import 
duty  of  ten  per  cent  upon  all  goods  of  British  manu 
facture.  It  was  not  regularly  submitted  to  the  crowrn 
for  confirmation,  but  had  been  transmitted  to  the 
Board  of  Trade  by  the  customs  officers,  and  without 

554  Representation  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  April  24,  1719,  in  C.O.  5,  915, 
pp.  267  ff. 

555  Instructions  sent  to  Governor  Hunter,  September  27,  1717,  in  New 
York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  v,  501. 

556  "\Ve  have  considered  the  Revenue  Act  and  have  some  objections  to 
it  particularly  that  it  affects  the  shipping  and  navigation  of  this  kingdom  as 
you  will  see  from  the  inclosed  paper  of  observations,  however  we  would  not 
lay  it  before  His  Majesty  to  be  repealed,  because  you  say  the  repealing  it 
would  ruin  the  trade  of  the  province ;  you  must  therefore  move  the  Assembly 
to  pass  a  new  act  not  liable  to  the  said  objections,  otherwise  we  shall  be 
obliged  to  lay  this  act  before  His  Majesty  for  his  disallowance,  for  no  acts  are 
to  be  passed  in  ye  plantations  whereby  the  shipping  and  navigation  of  this 
kingdom  are  affected."  —  Letter  to  Hunter,  February  25,  1718,  Ibid.,  500-502. 

557  —  Ibid.,  pp.  517-519. 


244        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

waiting  for  further  information  the  Board  laid  it  be 
fore  the  king  for  disallowance.  At  the  same  time  the 
proprietors  of  the  colony  were  directed  to  reprimand 
their  governor  for  consenting  to  a  law,  so  "repugnant 
to  the  laws  of  Great  Britain  and  no  ways  warranted 
by  the  charter."  They  were  also  informed  that  a 
repetition  of  the  offense  would  be  sufficient  ground 
for  annulling  their  charter.658 

The  New  York  revenue  act  of  1720  again  laid  a 
two  per  cent  duty  on  European  goods,  but  had  a 
clause  suspending  its  operation  until  it  had  been  con 
firmed.551  In  1724  the  Board  of  Trade  recommended 
that  the  act  should  be  "passed  into  law,"  although  it 
objected  to  the  principle  of  the  tax;  but  it  was  over 
ruled  by  the  Committee  of  the  Privy  Council  which 
insisted  upon  the  disallowance  of  the  act560 

In  order  to  prevent  the  enactment  of  similar  laws 
for  the  future,  instructions  were  at  once  sent  to  all 
the  governors  forbidding  them  to  consent  to  any  law 
which  laid  any  duty  whatsoever  on  European  goods 
imported  in  English  vessels.561  The  Board  did  not 

558  Representation  of  the  Board  to  the  king,  May  i,  1718,  in  C.O.  5,  1293, 
pp.  148-152.     The  act  was  annulled  by  an  Order  in  Council,  May  14,  1718, 
in  Privy  Council  Register,  "George  I,"  vol.  ii,  141. 

559  New  York  Colonial  Laws,  vol.  ii,  32. 

560  The  Board  of  Trade  reported  in  favor  of  confirming  the  law,  July, 
1722.     The  report  was  opposed  by  the  London  merchants  and  the  committee 
did  not  take  any  action  on  it  for  two  years.     Finally,  in  1724,  it  took  up  the 
report  of  the  Board  and  the  petition  of  the  merchants,  heard  counsel  for  and 
against  the  act,  "And  do  agree  humbly  to  offer  their  opinion  that  the  said 
act  is  not  fit  for  your  Majesty's  royal  approbation."  —  New  York  Colonial 
Documents,  vol.  v,  706 ;  Privy  Council  Register,  "George  I,"  vol.  iv,  46,  76, 
501,  502,  507. 

561  This  instruction  was  issued  at  the  demand  of  the  Committee  of  the 
Privy  Council.    See:  Order  in  Council,  April  30,  1724,  in  New  York  Colonial 
Documents,  vol.  v. 


TREATMENT  OF  COLONIAL  LEGISLATION   245 

recommend  the  disallowance  of  all  laws  which  vio 
lated  this  instruction;  but  it  refrained  from  doing  so, 
only  because  of  the  confusion  which  might  result 
from  the  repeal  of  a  revenue  law  after  the  taxes  had 
been  collected  and  in  some  cases  expended.  In  such 
cases,  however,  it  demanded  that  the  law  should  be 
amended  so  as  to  remove  the  objectionable  features.562 

The  Board  did  not  even  permit  evasions  of  this  rule 
by  indirect  methods  of  taxation.  Massachusetts  at 
tempted  to  do  this  in  1752  by  an  excise  tax  levied  upon 
retailers  of  certain  goods.  The  retailers  had  to  have 
licenses  and  importers  were  forbidden  to  sell  to  any 
but  licensed  retailers.  As  this  was  considered  a  bur 
den  upon  the  import  trade,  the  act  was  disallowed.563 

The  jealous  care  with  which  the  Board  of  Trade 
excluded  the  assemblies  from  all  legislation  which  in1 
any  way  burdened  British  commerce  is  also  seen  in 
its  attitude  toward  laws,  other  than  those  imposing 
ordinary  tariff  duties.  A  Massachusetts  act  of  1718 
"for  the  better  regulating  of  the  culling  of  fish"  was 
objected  to  by  certain  merchants  and  recommended 
by  the  Board  for  repeal,  on  the  ground  that  it  im 
posed  upon  British  traders  undesirable  restrictions  in 
purchasing  fish.564  Virginia  and  New  Jersey  at 
tempted  to  prevent  the  importation  of  convicted 

562  Representation  of  the  Board  of  Trade  on  the  New  York  revenue  law, 
August  6,  1755,  in  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  vi,  33-36. 

563  C.O.  5,  918,  p.  276 ;  Privy  Council  Register,  "George  II,"  vol.  xiv, 
146. 

564  The  merchants  complained  that  the  fish  were  badly  culled  by  the 
persons  appointed  under  this  act,  and  as  they  had  to  be  accepted,  even  though 
inferior,  the  trade  was  injured.     Before  the  passage  of  this  act  the  merchant 
had  his  own  culler  present  while  the  fish  were  being  culled,  and  so  could 
control  the  quality  of  his  purchase,  which  under  the  new  law  was  impossible. 
See:  Representation  of  the  Board,  May  4,  1721,  in  C.O.  5,  915,  p.  324. 


246        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

criminals,  but  the  acts  were  promptly  vetoed  in  Eng 
land.565  Other  colonies  tried  with  equally  ill  success 
to  exclude  paupers  and  other  indigent  persons,566  the 
Board  interposing  a  steadfast  objection. 

Pennsylvania  passed  a  series  of  laws  which  laid 
heavy  burdens  on  the  importation  of  convicted  crimi 
nals,  paupers,  and  other  indigent  persons.  Some  of 
these  were  not  transmitted  to  England  for  some  time 
and  so  escaped  the  vigilance  of  the  Board.  One 
passed  in  1738  was  objected  to  and  recommended  for 
disallowance,  but  the  Privy  Council  was  so  dilatory 
that  the  six  months  expired  before  any  action  was 
taken,567  which  had  the  effect  of  confirming  the  act. 

In  1746  the  Board  considered  the  acts  of  1742-1743, 
one  of  which  laid  an  import  duty  upon  criminals  and 
paupers.  Although  Francis  Fane  reported  that  he 
had  no  objection  to  the  act  "in  point  of  law,"  the 
Board  recommended  that  it  should  be  disallowed 
and  also  three  similar  acts  passed  in  1722  and  1729. 568 
The  reason  for  the  repeal  of  the  act  of  1742  was  that 

565  The  Virginia  Act  was  passed  in  1722  and  vetoed  the  next  year.    See: 
C.O.  5,  1365,  p.  252.     For  the  New  Jersey  Act  see  the  representation  of  the 
Board,  March  17,  1732,  in  C.O.  5,  996,  pp.  283-284;  Privy  Council  Register, 
"George  II,"  vol.  ii,  624. 

566  A  South  Carolina  act  of  1738,  regulating  the  coasting  trade,  included 
this  among  its  provisions.     Another  reason  for  its  disallowance  was  the  at 
tempted  special  privileges  given  to  vessels  owned  wholly  within  the  prov 
ince.     See:  Representation  of  the  Board,  May  9,  1755,  in  C.O.  5,  403,  pp. 
6-8 ;  Privy  Council  Register,  "George  II,"  vol.  xv,  452. 

56?  The  duties  and  penalties  were  held  to  be  sufficient  to  prevent  the 
transportation  of  felons.  The  Board  reported  for  repeal,  February  21,  1739, 
but  no  action  was  taken  by  the  Privy  Council  until  1747.  See:  C.O.  5,  1294; 
Privy  Council  Register,  "George  II,"  vol.  xi,  127. 

568  Xhis  report  provoked  an  indignant  protest  from  the  Penns  against  the 
proposed  repeal  of  laws  which  had  been  so  long  in  force,  and  against  which 
no  objection  had  previously  been  made.  This  protest  saved  the  act  of  1722 
and  the  two  acts  of  1729,  as  two  of  them  had  been  repealed  several  years 


TREATMENT  OF  COLONIAL  LEGISLATION   247 

the  duties  and  the  amount  of  security  required  of  the 
importer  of  indigent  persons  made  the  act  virtually 
prohibitory.  The  report  also  indicates  that  the  vital 
objection  to  this  and  the  other  acts  was  that  they  im 
posed  duties  in  such  a  way  as  to  regulate  immigration, 
although  they  specifically  exempted  from  their  op 
eration  such  persons  as  could  be  legally  imported 
according  to  the  laws  of  England.  But  as  the  ex 
emptions  did  not  include  the  penalties  imposed  upon 
masters  of  ships  for  violating  the  acts,  which  would 
"probably  deter  them  from  importing"  such  persons, 
the  Board  concluded  that  the  acts  were  clearly  regu 
lative  and  intended  to  evade  the  acts  of  Parliament.509 
In  1746  Pennsylvania  passed  another  act,  laying  du 
ties  only  on  persons  "Convicted  of  heinous  Crimes," 
but  the  Board  secured  the  repeal  of  this  act,  just  as  it 
had  the  others  and  on  similar  grounds.570 

The  question  of  the  slave  trade  early  attracted  at 
tention.  The  colonies  attempted  to  regulate  the  im 
portation  of  slaves,  just  as  Pennsylvania  did  that  of 
criminals,  by  means  of  tariff  duties.  In  doing  this, 
they  were  actuated  by  different  motives.  The  south 
ern  colonies  usually  desired  nothing  more  than 
revenue,  but  at  times  they  attempted  to  regulate  the 
quantity  and  quality  of  the  slaves  imported;  the 
northern  colonies  more  frequently  intended  that  their 

before  by  the  assembly.  See:  Petition  of  the  Penns  against  a  Representa 
tion  of  the  Board,  in  C.O.  5,  1271,  v,  38;  Privy  Council  Register,  "George 
II,"  vol.  xi,  51-52,  79. 

569  Representation  of  the  Board,  December  5,  1746,  in  C.O.  5,  1294,  pp. 
252  ff.     See,   also:  Pennsylvania  Archives,   vol.   i,   721,   and  Pennsylvania 
Statutes  at  Large,  vol.  iv,  509-511. 

570  This  act  was  supplementary  to  the  act  of  1742.     See:  Representation 
of  the  Board,  July  29,  1748,  in  C.O.  5,  1294,  P-  3555  Privy  Council  Register, 
"George  II,"  vol.  xii,  107. 


248        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

laws  should  be  exclusive.  In  either  case  the  laws 
could  be  and  frequently  were  regulative.  The  Board 
conceded  that  the  assemblies  might  lay  a  tax  upon  ne 
groes  for  purposes  of  revenue ;  but  it  insisted  that  such 
a  tax  should  not  be  so  laid  as  to  amount  to  a  regulation 
or  impose  a  burden  upon  commerce. 

Virginia  had  passed  three  different  acts  between 
1710  and  1718  which  laid  an  import  duty  of  five 
pounds  per  head  on  negroes;  but,  as  no  one  com 
plained,  the  Board  paid  little  attention  to  them.  In 
1723,  and  again  in  1728,  new  laws  were  framed  which 
levied  but  two  pounds  duty  per  head.  Both  of  these, 
however,  received  the  royal  disapproval,  on  demand 
of  the  Board,  because  they  laid  a  burden  upon  Brit 
ish  merchants.571  Another  reason  was  that  the  tax 
would  increase  the  value  of  slaves,  make  it  practically 
impossible  for  poor  planters  to  purchase  them,  hence 
delay  the  settling  up  of  the  country,  and  so  indirectly 
reduce  the  potential  quantity  of  tobacco  for  export.572 
The  action  in  the  case  of  the  Virginia  laws  indicates 
that  it  was  not  the  amount,  but  the  principle  of  the 
taxation,  which  was  opposed  by  the  Board. 

The  difficulty  was  solved  in  1735  as  a  result  of  the 
Board's  consideration  of  the  last  five-year  revenue 
act  of  New  York,  which  had  been  passed  in  1732  573 
and  contained  a  clause  laying  a  heavy  import  duty  on 
slaves.  The  act  had  been  in  operation  three  years, 

571  The  tax  was  to  be  paid  by  the  importer.     The  most  serious  objection, 
however,  was  the  indirect  effect  upon  English  trade  of  an  increase  in  the 
cost  of  slaves,  and  the  consequent  limitation  of  the  tobacco  fields. 

572  See  the  representations  of  the  Board  of  January  29,  1723,  and  May  23, 
1729,  in  C.O.  5,   1365,  pp.  269-271;   1366,  pp.  28  ff.     See,  also:  the  Privy 
Council  Register,  "George  I,"  vol.  iv,  546 ;  "George  II,"  vol.  ii,  47. 

573  New  York  Colonial  Laws,  vol.  ii,  768-787. 


TREATMENT  OF  COLONIAL  LEGISLATION   249 

and  had  been  complained  of  so  often  by  the  merchants 
that  finally  the  Board  sent  the  governor  instructions 
to  have  the  law  amended  at  once  so  that 

No  duty  be  laid  on  any  slaves  imported  payable  by  the  im 
porter  .  .  .  also  to  signify  our  royal  intention  to  our 
council  and  the  Assembly  of  our  said  province  that  if  they  do 
not  immediately  comply  with  this  our  instruction  we  shall  re 
peal  the  act  now  complained  of.574 

Similar  instructions  were  issued  to  other  governors, 
and  from  that  time  on,  colonial  laws  which  imposed 
duties  on  negroes  had  to  specify  that  the  tax  should 
not  be  paid  by  the  importer.575 

The  Board  of  Trade  also  took  exception  to  acts  of 
the  colonial  assemblies  which  were  intended  to  place 
restrictions  upon  intercolonial  trade;  but  in  practice 
did  not  demand  the  repeal  of  very  many  laws  for  that 
reason.  A  law  of  North  Carolina  levying  a  duty 
upon  Indian  traders  from  Virginia  who  traded  with 
the  Indians  to  the  south  and  west  was  repealed  in 
I709.576  The  Massachusetts  tariff  act  which  laid  re 
taliatory  duties  on  the  products  of  New  Hampshire 
was  passed  in  1721.  Mr.  West,  the  attorney  for  the 
Board,  gave  an  opinion  on  this  law  in  1725,  in  the 
course  of  which  he  said, 

If  any  province  injures  another  by  any  undue  tax  on  their 
trade  the  remedy  I  think  ought  to  be  by  application  to  the 

674  Additional  instructions  to  Governor  Cosby,  August,  1735,  in  New 
York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  vi,  33-34. 

575  See  the  instructions  to  Francis  Bernard,  1758,  in  New  Jersey  Archives, 
vol.  ix,  52-53 ;  to  Arthur  Dobbs,  1754,  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records, 
vol.  v,  1118.  Cf.  Du  Bois's  Suppression  of  the  Slave  Trade,  chaps,  ii-iv. 
V  B76  Order  in  Council  of  September  26,  1709,  in  C.O.  5,  1316,  O,  40.  In 
1711  this  act  was  renewed  by  North  Carolina  in  the  form  of  an  export  duty, 
as  it  was  claimed  that  the  Virginia  traders  passed  through  North  Carolina 
territory  in  going  to  and  from  the  Indian  country.  The  Board  at  once  de- 


250        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

crown  to  prevent  any  such  acts  being  pass'd  into  law,  and  not 
by  way  of  reprisals  enacted  among  themselves.577 

The  Board  was  evidently  of  the  same  opinion  as 
Mr.  West;  for  in  1731,  when  the  residents  of  Albe- 
marle  County,  North  Carolina,  complained  of  Vir 
ginia's  laying  a  heavy  import  duty  upon  their  tobac 
co,  it  at  once  ordered  the  secretary  to  prepare  the 
draft  of  a  representation  for  the  repeal  of  the  acts.578 
Four  years  later,  when  Massachusetts  excluded  New 
Hampshire  bills  of  credit,  the  Board  ordered  the  act 
to  be  laid  before  the  king  for  his  disallowance.579 
Other  cases  could  be  cited  in  which  the  Board  showed 
a  similar  attitude.  Thus  when  Governor  Dobbs  com 
plained  of  a  South  Carolina  statute  which  taxed 
naval  stores  imported  from  the  northward,  the  Board 
wrote  him  that  it  must  be  in  its  consequence  destruc 
tive  to 

The  commerce  of  His  Majesty's  subjects  in  North  Carolina 
and  have  an  improper  effect  thereupon  and  therefore  we  shall 
lose  no  time  in  enquiring  into  this  matter  and  taking  such 
measures  as  shall  appear  to  us  to  be  proper.580 

manded  that  the  act  be  disallowed.     See:  Representation  of  the  Board,  De 
cember  19,  1712,  in  C.O.  5,  1363,  pp.  437-438. 

577  Massachusetts  Acts  and  Resolves,  vol.  ii,  235. 

578  There  were  two  of  these  acts,  one  passed  in  1705  and  the  other  in 
1726;    both   intended   to   prevent  the    importation   of   tobacco   from    North 
Carolina.     In  recommending  the  repeal  of  these  laws  the  Board  pointed  out 
that  the  only  good  port  in  North  Carolina  was  near  the  southern  boundary, 
and  that  it  was  therefore  necessary  that  the  planters  use  those  of  Virginia. 
If  the  planters  to  the  northward  were  cut  off  from  Virginia  by  both  land  and 
sea,  as  these  laws  contemplated,  they  would  be  placed  under  difficulties  so 
great  that  they  might  be  forced  to  give  up  the  production  of  tobacco  and  go 
to  manufacturing.     See:  Representation  of  the  Board,  July  29,  1731,  C.O.  5, 
1366,   pp.    76-78.     The   acts    were    disallowed,    November   25,    1731.     See: 
Privy  Council  Register,  "George  II,"  vol.  ii,  477. 

579  Massachusetts  Acts  and  Resolves,  vol.  ii,  747. 

580  Letter  of  November  9,  1757,  in  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  vol. 
v,  786-787. 


TREATMENT  OF  COLONIAL  LEGISLATION   251 

The  policy  of  the  Board  on  the  subject  of  inter 
colonial  commerce  is  just  as  clear  as  it  was  on  the 
question  of  external  trade,  although  there  are  fewer 
instances  of  its  use.  The  few  instances  of  action,  how 
ever,  were  effective  in  preventing  the  growth  of  dis 
criminating  trade  laws.  The  most  striking  illustra 
tion  of  this  is  the  rapidity  with  which  commercial 
retaliation  of  all  kinds  developed  as  soon  as  the  colo 
nies  threw  off  British  control,  and  the  absence  of  such 
controversies  during  the  preceding  century.  After 
the  colonies  became  independent  they  were  unre 
strained,  there  was  no  body  to  disallow  their  laws, 
they  had  no  common  superior,  nor  was  there  any 
place  where  unfair  and  discriminating  laws  of  other 
colonies  could  be  effectually  impeached.  The  little 
which  the  Board  did  in  this  field  made  a  world  of  dif 
ference  -  the  difference  between  commercial  har 
mony  and  commercial  anarchy. 

Efforts  to  prevent  conditions  in  any  colony  which 
might  lead  to  a  retardation  of  its  development, 
or  which  might  cause  a  depopulation  of  neigh 
boring  provinces,  are  closely  related  to  the  Board's 
commercial  policy.  Overlarge  individual  land 
holdings  hindered  rapid  growth  in  population, 
consequently  the  Board  insisted  upon  laws  break 
ing  the  exorbitant  land  grants  in  New  York,  and 
refused  its  consent  to  land  grant,  seating,  and 
cultivation  laws  in  other  colonies  because  they 
would  encourage  the  growth 581  of  large  hold 
ings.  It  also  put  its  stamp  of  disapproval  upon  laws 

581  In  1707  the  Board  secured  the  repeal  of  a  Virginia  law  regulating 
land  grants  and  their  seating.  This  act  permitted  anybody  to  take  up  two 
hundred  acres  of  land  for  each  taxable  servant  above  five  in  number,  be- 


252        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

offering  to  newcomers  temporary  exemption  from 
prosecutions  for  debts  contracted  in  other  prov 
inces.582 

Another  important  class  of  acts  which  the  Board 
very  frequently  offered  for  the  royal  veto  included 
those  which  affected  private  property.  A  wide  range 
of  laws  could  be  included  under  this  general  head; 
but  the  most  common  can  be  grouped  into  two  gen 
eral  divisions.  The  first  and  larger  class  included 
laws  which  in  some  way  affected  credit  transactions, 

sides  the  fifty  acres  he  could  take  up  for  bringing  a  servant  into  the  colony. 
Not  more  than  four  thousand  acres  could  be  granted  in  one  patent,  but  a 
person  could  take  out  as  many  patents  as  he  chose.  Under  this  law  any 
person  with  one  hundred  slaves  could  patent  nineteen  thousand  acres  of 
land,  or  other  areas  in  proportion.  The  Board  maintained  that  this  was 
far  more  than  any  one  man  could  cultivate,  and  would  enable  a  few  rich 
men  to  secure  control  of  all  the  good  land.  Thus  the  law  would  delay  the 
actual  settling  of  the  colony. 

The  provision  in  regard  to  seating  was  equally  objectionable.  Building 
a  house  twelve  by  twelve,  clearing,  planting,  and  tending  one  acre  was 
sufficient  for  "seating  and  planting,"  without  any  provision  as  to  the  number 
of  acres.  The  Board  insisted  that  this  should  suffice  for  but  fifty  acres,  in 
stead  of  a  possible  four  thousand.  See:  Representation  of  the  Board,  March 
27,  1707,  in  C.O.  5,  1362,  pp.  117  ff. 

The  repeal  of  the  above  law  left  a  law  of  1666  in  force  which  defined 
"seating"  as  building  a  house  and  keeping  stock  for  one  whole  year,  without 
mentioning  the  number  of  acres.  This  too  was  disallowed  in  17x1,  having 
been  in  force  forty-five  years.  See:  Representation  of  the  Board,  February 
22,  1711,  in  Privy  Council  Register,  "Anne,"  vol.  v,  227. 

Other  colonies  attempted  to  change  the  terms  of  granting  lands  and 
failed.  North  Carolina  in  1738  tried  to  reduce  the  requirement  by  one  half, 
but  the  law  was  vetoed  in  1740.  See:  C.O.  5,  323,  pp.  279-281 ;  Privy  Coun 
cil  Register,  "George  II,"  vol.  vii,  257.  A  number  of  other  acts  of  North 
Carolina  affecting  land  grants  were  repealed  in  1754.  See:  Representation 
of  the  Board,  March  25,  1754,  in  C.O.  5,  323 ;  Privy  Council  Register, 
"George  II,"  vol.  xv,  Ii8-X2x. 

582  The  act  of  North  Carolina,  vetoed  in  1707,  is  a  good  illustration.  By 
this  act  persons  coming  from  other  colonies  were  not  to  be  proceeded  against 
for  debts  due  in  places  from  which  they  came  for  a  period  of  five  years 
after  coming  to  the  colony.  See:  Representation  of  the  Board,  November 
12,  1707,  in  C.O.  5,  1292,  pp.  17-19. 


TREATMENT  OF  COLONIAL  LEGISLATION   253 

such  as  acts  giving  the  claims  of  resident  creditors 
precedence  over  those  of  non-residents,583  various 
forms  of  bankruptcy  laws,584  legal  tender  acts,585  stay 
laws,586  statutes  of  limitations,587  and  usury  laws.588 
The  second  class  embraced  those  which  affected  land 
titles,  such  as  cultivation  laws,  and  acts  regulating  the 
method  of  recording  deeds  and  proving  titles,  espe 
cially  if  such  acts  were  retroactive. 

As  the  colonies  grew  and  the  population  flowed 

583  See:  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  vol.  iv,   844;   Pennsylvania 
Archives,  first  series,  vol.  i,  157. 

584  "It  is  easy  to  foresee  that  such  a  law  can  be  beneficial  to  the  very 
small  part  of  the  creditors  resident  in  the  colony  only  and  that  the  nine- 
tenths  of  them  who  reside  here  would  be  exposed  to  frauds  and  difficulties 
of  every  sort  and  might  be  greatly  injured  in  their  properties. 

"For  these  reasons  we  beg  leave  to  lay  the  said  act  before  your  Lordships, 
with  our  humble  opinion,  that  it  should  forthwith  receive  His  Majesty's 
disallowance."  —  Report  of  the  Board  to  the  Privy  Council,  June  29,  1758,  on 
the  Massachusetts  bankruptcy  law,  passed  August  31,  1757,  in  Massachusetts 
Acts  and  Resolves,  vol.  iv,  44. 

The  Maryland  act  for  the  relief  of  poor  debtors,  repealed  in  1709,  comes 
under  this  head,  although  it  affected  English  merchants  less.  The  Vir 
ginia  insolvency  law  of  1762  was  a  bankruptcy  law  in  all  but  name,  and 
affected  English  creditors  almost  as  much  as  did  that  of  Massachusetts.  It 
was  disallowed  in  1763,  after  a  full  hearing  of  the  complaints  and  objections 
of  merchants  who  might  be  affected.  C.O.  5,  727,  p.  132;  1368,  pp.  234-241 ; 
Privy  Council  Register,  "George  III,"  vol.  iii,  54. 

585  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  viii,  part  ii,  101,  125,  and  passim ;  New 
York  Colonial  Documents,  vols.  vi,  vii,  passim. 

586  New  Jersey  act  for  the  suspension  of  civil  actions  from  February  to 
September,  1748.     See:  Representation  of  the  Board,  July  21,  1749,  in  New 
Jersey  Archives,  vol.  vii,  307-308. 

587  See  the  representation  of  the  Board  on  a  Virginia  act  fixing  a  limi 
tation  of  obligations  for  judgments,  bonds,  etc.,  March  21,  1729,  in  Board 
of  Trade  Journal,  39,  pp.  60-61 ;  Privy  Council  Register,  "George  II,"  vol. 
i,  509. 

588  New  York  act  to  prevent  the  levying  on  specialties  more  than  the 
principal,    interest,    and   cost  of   suit;    disallowed,   August   12,    1731.     See: 
Privy  Council  Register,  "George  II,"  vol.  ii,  402.     Maryland  act  to  limit 
damages  upon  protested  bills  of  exchange  to  ten  per  cent;  passed,  December 
n,   1708;   repealed,  December  15,   1709,  because  the  limit  did  not  permit 


254        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

westward  and  filled  up  the  back  country,  it  became 
necessary  to  increase  the  original  number  of  civil  di 
visions.  In  Massachusetts  it  had  been  the  custom, 
when  a  new  town  was  created,  to  allow  it  to  send  dele 
gates  to  the  House  of  Representatives  the  same  as  the 
older  towns.  In  1743  the  Board  of  Trade  instructed 
the  governor  not  to  give  his  assent  to  any  similar  law 
in  the  future,  on  the  ground  that 

This  practice  of  erecting  new  towns  and  vesting  them  with 
this  privilege,  having  formerly  by  its  frequency  been  found  to 
produce  many  inconveniences  and  particularly  that  of  contin 
ually  increasing  the  number  of  Representatives.589 

Although  the  lower  house  of  the  Massachusetts  legis 
lature  objected  to  the  instruction  as  an  illegal  attempt 
to  limit  the  legislative  privileges  granted  by  the 
charter,  it  observed  the  new  order,  in  form  at  least, 
until  1757.  In  that  year  Danvers  was  erected  into  a 
town  with  the  privilege  of  sending  representatives  to 
the  House;  but  the  act  was  disallowed  at  the  request 
of  the  Board  in  1759,  because  it  was  clearly  in  viola 
tion  of  the  governor's  instructions  on  this  point.590 

In  the  meantime  the  same  question  had  arisen  in 
North  Carolina  in  a  somewhat  similar  form.  From 
time  to  time,  new  counties  had  been  created  with  the 
privilege  of  sending  two  delegates  to  the  assembly. 

even  ordinary  interest  on  protested  bills,  when  unavoidable  delays  were 
considered.  See:  C.O.  5,  727,  p.  141;  Privy  Council  Register,  "Anne," 
vol.  iv,  491. 

589  Representation  of  the  Board,  July  31,  1759,  in  Massachusetts  Acts  and 
Resolves,  vol.  iv,  5.     The  above  quotation  is  the  Board's  own  reason  for 
issuing  the  instruction.     Cf.  the  report  of  the  Board  on  laws  creating  town 
ships  passed  in  1739-1740,  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  1006-1007. 

590  Massachusetts  Acts  and  Resolves,  vol.  iv,  5,  93-94;  C.O.  5,  919,  pp. 
40-41.     Notice  of  the  disallowance  apparently  never  reached  Massachusetts, 
and  Danvers  continued  to  send  representatives  to  the  General  Court. 


TREATMENT  OF  COLONIAL  LEGISLATION   255 

Some  of  the  older  counties  claimed  the  right  of  send 
ing  five  representatives,  consequently  there  was  dis 
satisfaction  in  the  other  counties.  In  1746,  Governor 
Johnson,  by  some  shrewd  parliamentary  practice,  se 
cured  the  enactment  of  a  law  rearranging  the  repre 
sentation.  This  act  was  considered  by  the  Board  be 
tween  the  years  1750-1754  and  finally  recommended 
for  disapproval,  together  with  all  the  previous  acts 
creating  counties.591  Governor  Dobbs  was  then  in 
structed  to  incorporate  the  counties  by  charters,  is 
sued  with  the  consent  of  his  council,  and  at  the  same 
time  directed  what  representation  he  should  permit 
each  county  to  have  in  the  assembly.  This  arrange 
ment  failed,  and  he  was  finally  instructed  to  reenact 
the  laws  creating  counties,  but  such  acts  should  not 
confer  upon  them  the  right  to  elect  members  of  the 
assembly.592 

Probably  the  Board  had  no  real  conception  of  the 
growth  of  an  American  commonwealth,  else  it  would 
not  have  taken  the  hostile  attitude  it  did  toward  an 
increase  of  the  representative  body.  Possibly  the 
members  were  so  profoundly  impressed  with  the  evils 
of  the  "rotten  borough"  that  they  feared  its  introduc 
tion  into  the  colonies.  The  constantly  increasing 
numbers  of  local  units,  and  the  automatic  acquisition 
of  representation,  tended  to  make  some  of  the  lower 

591  Representation  of  the  Board  of  Trade  on  the  condition  of  North  Caro 
lina,  March  14,  1754,  in  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  vol.  v,  81-108. 
March  25,  the  Board  recommended  the  repeal  of  thirteen  different  acts  for 
the  creation  of  counties,  precincts,  and  townships,  which  was  done,  April  8, 
1754.     See:    C.O.   5,   323;    Privy   Council   Register,   "George   II,"   vol.   xv, 
118-121. 

592  Instructions  to  Arthur  Dobbs,  in  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records, 
vol.  v,  340-341,  mi. 


256        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

houses  unwieldy.  As  they  had  steadily  encroached 
upon  the  council,  the  growing  disparity  in  numbers 
between  the  two  houses  only  added  to  the  powers  and 
authority  of  the  popular  chamber;  hence  the  Board 
felt  justified  in  checking  further  additions  to  that 
body.593 

Except  in  Massachusetts,  the  Board  interfered  only 
when  the  governor  and  his  legislature  disagreed,  and 
in  the  case  of  New  Hampshire  594  and  North  Caro 
lina  it  finally  permitted  the  colonists  to  settle  the  ques 
tion  for  themselves.  Even  the  objection  to  the  prac 
tice  in  Massachusetts  was  finally  withdrawn  as  ille 
gal,  so  that  the  colonies  were  left  to  work  out  the 
problem,  each  in  its  own  way.595 

In  its  attempt  to  eliminate  irregularities  in  colonial 
legislation,  the  Board  of  Trade  made  an  attempt  to 
introduce  into  the  colonies  a  system  of  private  bill 
procedure  similar  to  that  in  use  in  England.  The 
first  instruction  to  the  governors  of  Massachusetts  on 
the  subject  was  issued  in  1715  to  Governor  Burgess. 
It  provided  that  every  private  law  should  have  a 
clause  saving  the  rights  of  the  crown  and  all  persons 
other  than  those  mentioned  in  the  act.596 

No  further  instructions  appeared  until  1723,  when 

593  By  the  letters  of  Governor  Shirley  it  appears  to  us  that  there  have 
been  no  fewer  than  thirty-three  new  townships  since  1692,  each  of  which  has 
a  right  to  send  one  or  two  representatives  to  the  assembly.     There  are  now 
one  hundred  and  sixty  towns  in  the  province,  most  of  which  send  two  repre 
sentatives.     We  think  this  enough.     This  destroys  the  balance  between  the 
assembly   and   council.  —  Representation   of   the   Board   on   a   Massachusetts 
act  creating  new  townships,  June  8,  1743,  in  C.O.  5,  918,  pp.  93-95. 

594  See  the  representations  of  the  Board  of  July  9  and  December  22,  1752, 
on  the  acts  of  New  Hampshire,  in  C.O.  5,  941,  pp.  277-280,  293-294. 

595  Massachusetts  Acts  and  Resolves,  vol.  iv,  94,  452. 

596  —  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.v. 


TREATMENT  OF  COLONIAL  LEGISLATION   257 

the  governor  was  directed  to  require  all  such  laws  to 
have  a  clause  suspending  their  action  until  they  were 
approved  by  the  crown.597  In  addition  he  was  di 
rected 

Not  to  give  your  assent  to  any  private  act  until  proof  be  made 
before  you  in  council  (and  entred  in  the  council  books)  that 
publick  notification  was  made  of  the  parties'  intention  to 
apply  for  such  act  in  the  several  parish  churches  where  the 
premises  in  question  lie,  for  three  Sundays  at  least,  succes 
sively,  before  any  such  act  shall  be  brought  into  the  Assem 
bly;  and  that  a  certificate  under  your  hand  be  transmitted 
with  and  annexed  to  every  such  private  act  signifying  that 
the  same  has  pass'd  thro'  all  the  forms  above  mention'd.598 

The  House  of  Representatives  in  Massachusetts 
refused  to  follow  the  above  instructions,  and  no 
private  acts  were  passed  until  1742, 5"  when  one  was 
attempted.  As  there  was  no  evidence,  however,  that 
the  instructions  had  been  observed  it  was  disallowed.600 
Six  more  private  acts  were  passed  in  the  next  fifteen 
years,  but  as  all  were  for  the  purpose  of  granting 
divorces  and  did  not  especially  affect  property,  no  at 
tention  was  paid  to  them.601  In  1757  another  attempt 
was  made  to  evade  the  instructions,  but  the  Board  se 
cured  the  disallowance  of  the  one  act  of  that  year,  as 

597  This  instruction  was  added  at  the  request  of  the  Committee  of  the 
Privy  Council.     Previous  to  1722  such  instructions  had  only  been  given  to 
the  governors  of  Jamaica,  Bermudas,  Barbadoes,  and  the  Leeward  Islands. 
See:  Privy  Council  Register,  "George  I,"  vol.  iv,  183. 

598  Massachusetts  Acts  and  Resolves,  vol.  vi,  pp.  iv,  v.     The  same  in 
struction  was  issued  to  all  the  governors  in  America.     See  that  to  Governor 
Lewis  Morris,   in  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  vi,  24.     Cf.  Todd's  Parlia 
mentary  Government,  private  bill  procedure. 

599  Massachusetts  Acts  and  Resolves,  vol.  vi,  p.  iv. 

600  —  Ibid.,  161.     Private  Act,  no.  80,  passed,  June  18,  1742;  disallowed, 
May  28,  1746. 

eoi  _  Hid.,  163-177.     Private  Acts,  nos.  81,  82,  83,  84,  85,  86. 


258        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

well  as  one  which  passed  the  following  year.602  Be 
tween  the  years  1760-1767,  eight  more  private  bills 
were  passed,  three  of  which  were  repealed.  Appar 
ently  the  forms  of  procedure  required  by  the  govern 
or's  instructions  had  not  been  followed;  but  that  was 
not  the  only  cause  for  disallowance,  as  the  Board  con 
sidered  the  laws  objectionable  in  themselves. 

While  the  Board  failed  to  induce  Massachusetts 
to  follow  the  forms  laid  down  for  legislation  of  this 
kind,  it  did  successfully  stand  in  the  way  of  the  enact 
ment  of  many  laws  in  violation  of  its  orders.  It 
should  be  noted,  however,  that  the  real  objection  of 
Massachusetts  to  the  instruction  was  that  it  was  an 
unwarranted  infringement  of  its  charter,  and  without 
legal  force. 

The  safeguards  thrown  about  private  bills  were 
certainly  reasonable,  for  in  most  cases  such  laws  were 
extrajudicial  in  character,  affected  property  rights, 
and  might  easily  do  great  injustice  to  innocent  parties. 
The  Board  was  quite  inexorable  when  such  a  law 
failed  to  indicate  that  due  notice  had  been  given  of 
the  application  for  such  a  bill,603  and  that  the  rights 

602  Both  of  these  laws  were  to  expedite  the  settlement  of  estates.     After 
reciting  the  limitation  in  the  governors'  instructions,  the  representation  of  the 
Board  concludes:     "These  regulations  have  ever  been  esteem'd  essentially 
necessary  for  the  security  of  private  property  in  His  Majesty's  plantations; 
and  as  they  have  not  in  either  respect  been  observed  in  the  passing  of  the 
two  private  acts  above  mentioned"  they  should  be  disallowed.     See:  Repre 
sentation  of  the  Board,  July  31,  1759,  in  C.O.  5,  919,  pp.  41-44;  Massachusetts 
Acts  and  Resolves,  vol.  vi,  178-180. 

603  See  the  representation  of  the  Board  of  May  16,  1760,  for  the  repeal 
of  three  private  acts  of  Virginia,  passed  in  1758-1759.     "In  these  acts  there 
is  no  certificate  of  any  previous  notification,   in  the  parish   church,  of  the 
intention  of  the  respective  parties  to  apply  for  such  act,"  etc.     See:  C.O.  5, 
1367,  pp.  401-405.     Many  other  illustrations  are  found  in  the  Virginia  and 
Carolina  Entry  Books. 


TREATMENT  OF  COLONIAL  LEGISLATION   259 

of  minor  heirs  had  been  conserved.604  In  practically 
all  of  the  royal  provinces  these  regulations  were  fol 
lowed  without  complaint.  Where  they  were  evaded, 
a  repeal  was  almost  inevitable.  The  southern  group 
of  colonies  made  more  extensive  use  of  such  laws  than 
did  the  northern,  as  there  were  more  occasions  there 
to  break  through  entails  of  land.605 

The  Board  was  not  only  particular  of  the  proce 
dure  in  such  bills,  it  carefully  looked  into  their  con 
tents  to  see  that  no  great  innovations  were  creeping  in. 
Private  divorce  acts  different  from  those  in  England 
were  objected  to  but  not  repealed,  for  obvious  rea- 

604  An    act   of  Pennsylvania   passed   in   1718,   placing  the   property  of 
William  Clark,  deceased,  in  the  hands  of  trustees  to  be  sold  for  the  payment 
of  his  debts,  is  typical  of  several  which  the  Board  rejected.     William  Clark, 
the  son,  had  become  bound  for  £220.     Afterwards  his  father  died,  leaving 
property  valued  at  £3000  to  his  son  and  his  son's  wife  for  life,  after  which 
it  was  to  go  to  their  children.    The  son  died,  leaving  a  wife  and  three 
children,  who  were  still  minors  and  were  living  in  Barbadoes.    The  act 
proposed  to  sell  a  portion  of  the  property  left  by  the  elder  Mr.  Clark  to 
pay  his  debts  without  any  notice  to  the  minor  heirs  to  whom  it  belonged,  nor 
any  saving  of  their  rights.     Needless  to  say,  it  met  the  royal  veto.     See: 
Representation  of  the  Board,  November  26,  1719,  in  C.O.  5,  1293 ;  Privy 
Council  Register,  "George  I,"  vol.  i,  364. 

605  T^  Entry  Books  for  Virginia  and  the  Carolinas  contain  many  entries 
like  the  following:     "We  have  consulted  Mr.  Fane,  one  of  your  Majesty's 
council,  upon  the  several  acts,  who  has  no  objection  to  any  of  them  in  point 
of  law;  and  as  they  have  pass'd  thro'  the  forms  in  Virginia  prescribed  by 
Your  Majesty's  instructions  for  the  enacting  of  private  laws,  and  no  com 
plaint  has  been  offered  to  us  against  any  of  them  during  the  six  months  in 
which  they  have  lain  by  in  our  office,"  we  recommend  their  confirmation. 
See:  Representation  of  the  Board,  June  29,   1733,   for  the  confirmation  of 
thirteen  private  acts  of  Virginia,  passed  in  1730-1732,  in  C.O.  5,  1366,  pp. 
103-107. 

"This  Act  appears  to  have  been  passed  with  the  consent  of  all  the  parties 
concerned,  and  in  exact  conformity  to  the  regulations  prescribed  by  Your 
Majesty's  Instructions."  -  Representation  of  the  Board  for  the  confirmation 
of  a  North  Carolina  act  of  1761  "to  dock  the  entail  of  Lands  therein  men 
tioned,"  March  15,  1763,  in  C.O.  5,  305,  pp.  224-225. 


26o        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

sons.606  If  a  party  had  an  easy  remedy  at  law,  the 
private  bill  was  frequently  repealed.607  Laws,  public 
in  form  but  private  in  application,  were  not  tolerated, 
if  they  were  detected; 608  nor  were  private  bills  of  an 
unusual  character,  such  as  permitting  a  married 
woman  to  sell  her  real  estate  during  the  lifetime  of 
her  husband  without  his  consent,609  or  exempting  par- 

606  Three  divorce  acts  of  Massachusetts,  passed  in  1755,  1756,  and  1757, 
were  considered  by  the  Board  in  1758.     Two  of  these  divorces  were  for 
adultery  on  the  part  of  the  husband,  and  the  wife  in  each  case  was  given 
the  divorce  and  permitted  to  marry  again.     Matthew  Lamb  said  they  were 
"the  first  of  their  kind  he  ever  saw  in  the  colonies  or  elsewhere."     Only  one 
recited  a  previous  divorce  from  bed  and  board,  the  other  two  contained  no 
evidence  that  the  charges  recited  had  been  proved  before  a  competent  tri 
bunal,  and  all  three  acts  were  defective  because  they  dissolved  the  marriage 
on  one  side  only.     As  the  laws  had  already  had  their  effect,  the  Board  did 
not  recommend  a  disallowance;  but  as  it  was  doubtful  whether  any  colony 
had  power  to  pass  laws  of  that  nature,  and  consequently  an  open  question 
whether  the  laws  were  not  in  themselves  "null  and  void,"  they  were  sent  to 
the  attorney-  and  solicitor-general  for  their  opinion.     This  was  done  "to  the 
end  that  proper  instructions  may  be  form'd  for  the  governor  of  this  and 
other  His  Majesty's  colonies  to  regulate  their  conduct  in  the  like  cases." 
These    acts,    however,    were    not    disallowed.     See:    Representation    of    the 
Board,  June  6,  1758.     CO.  5,  918,  pp.  486-490. 

These  are  not  the  first  divorce  laws,  for  general  divorce  laws  existed  in 
several  colonies,  but  are  the  first  private  divorce  acts  of  a  particular  char 
acter.  See  the  Pennsylvania  laws  for  the  punishment  of  adultery,  of  1702 
and  1705-1706.  The  first  was  repealed  because  it  was  not  specific  in  regard 
to  the  kind  of  divorce  it  allowed.  The  other  specified  "from  Bed  and 
Board"  and  was  not  objected  to.  See:  C.O.  5,  1291,  p.  260;  Pennsylvania 
Statutes  at  Large,  vol.  ii,  180.  Cf.  Channing's  History  of  the  United  States, 
vol.  ii,  235. 

607  Five  private  acts  of  New  Hampshire  were  repealed  at  one  time  for 
this  reason.     Representation  of  the  Board,  July  10,  1764,  in  C.O.  5,  942,  pp. 
268-284. 

608  See  the  action  of  the  Board  in  regard  to  a  Georgia  law  of  1759  con 
firming  titles  to  certain  lands.     Representation  of  the  Board,  June  23,  1761, 
in  C.O.  5,  674,  pp.  192-196. 

609  &  Virginia  act  of  1732  enabled  Frances  Greenbill  to  dispose  of  her 
lands  and  other  estate  by  either  will  or  deed,  even  though  her  husband  were 
living.     Francis  Fane  in  his  report  to  the  Board  said:     "This  is  the  first 
instance  wherein  the  legislature  in  any  of  the  colonies  abroad  have  taken 


TREATMENT  OF  COLONIAL  LEGISLATION   261 

ticular  individuals  from  prosecution  for  debt  for  a 
term  of  years.610  Much  less  did  the  Board  tolerate 
private  acts  which  were  in  effect  only  bills  of  attain 
der.611  It  was  as  scrupulous  about  innovations  contrary 
to  the  law  of  England  as  any  court,  and  the  impor 
tance  of  a  private  bill  as  a  dangerous  precedent  was 
frequently  considered,  and  led  to  many  vetoes.612  On 
the  whole  the  Board's  private  bill  policy  was  a  suc 
cess  from  an  administrative  standpoint,  and  of  very 
considerable  value  to  the  colonists  themselves. 

In  addition  to  the  kinds  of  laws  mentioned  above, 
the  Board  of  Trade  found  reasons  for  disallowing 
many  others.  Some  were  of  an  ecclesiastical  nature, 
such  as  laws  regulating  riotous  sports,613  the  action  of 

upon  themselves  to  alter  the  law  in  so  settled  and  known  a  point  as  giving 
a  power  to  a  femme  convert  to  sell  or  dispose  of  her  real  or  personal  estate 
in  the  supposed  lifetime  of  her  husband." —  Representation  of  the  Board, 
March  21,  1745,  in  C.O.  5,  1366,  pp.  371-372.  The  act  was  promptly  dis 
allowed.  A  Massachusetts  act  of  1762  was  disallowed  for  similar  reasons. 
See:  Privy  Council  Register,  "George  II,"  vol.  viii,  527;  C.O.  5,  920,  pp. 
149-151. 

610  See  the  Board's  report  of  May  12,  1758,  on  an  act  of  Pennsylvania 
for  the  relief  of  George  Croghan  and  William  Trent,  passed  in  1755,  and 
disallowed  in  1758,  in  C.O.  5,  1295,  pp.  249-251. 

611  Six  private  acts  of  Massachusetts  for  the  punishment  of  six  individuals 
for  trading  with  the  French  were  disallowed  in  1707.     See:  C.O.  5,  912, 
pp.  356,  388. 

612  A  South  Carolina  act  of  1733,  or  1723  (the  date  is  variously  given), 
was  repealed  in  1734,  largely  because  of  the  precedent  it  might  establish. 
The  act  altered  a  will  by  taking  property  from  one  son  and  giving  it  to 
another,  and  changed  several  other  provisions.     See:  Representation  of  the 
Board,  April  18,  1734,  in  C.O.  5,  401,  p.  95. 

A  New  Hampshire  act  of  1742  changed  an  estate  from  an  estate  tail 
to  one  in  fee  simple  by  changing  the  terms  of  a  mortgage.  It  was  repealed 
because  it  might  create  a  dangerous  precedent.  Representation  of  the  Board, 
June  14,  1754,  in  C.O.  5,  941,  pp.  351-354.  The  effect  of  several  of  the 
laws  cited  above  as  precedents  for  others  was  also  a  reason  for  their  dis 
allowance. 

613  Pennsylvania  Archives,  first  series,  vol.  i,  155,  157. 


262        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

vestries,614  and  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath.  Some 
were  badly  drawn,  uncertain  in  their  meaning,  or 
absurd  in  their  provisions.615  Many  others  were  in 
violation  of  instructions,  repealed  laws  formerly  con 
firmed,616  or  reenacted  laws  already  disallowed.  Still 
others  attempted  to  change  slaves  from  real  to  per 
sonal  property.617 

The  foregoing  account  shows  that  the  Board, 
through  its  power  to  secure  the  repeal  of  colonial 
laws,  was  able  to  mould  and  develop  certain  phases 
of  the  provincial  constitutions.  The  power  to  regu 
late  external  commerce  was  carefully  retained  in  the 
hands  of  the  home  government,  and  restrictions  placed 
upon  the  power  of  the  colonies  to  regulate  commerce 
of  a  purely  intercolonial  nature.  Trade  was  given  a 
chance  to  expand  by  the  Board's  preventing  the  co 
lonial  legislatures  from  laying  legal  obstacles  in  the 

614  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  vol.  vi,  716. 

615  February  7,  1706,  thirty-five  acts  of  Pennsylvania  were  disallowed, 
mainly  for  one  of  these  defects.     See:  C.O.  5,  1291,  pp.  254  ff. 

616  The  Virginia  acts  of  1705  for  the  better  regulation  of  William  and 
Mary  College  and  to  prevent  the  "tending  of  seconds"  were  disallowed  for 
this  reason.     See:  Representation  of  the  Board,  August  6,  1731,  in  C.O.  5, 
1366,  p.  502.     Scores  of  similar  cases  could  be  cited. 

617  Slaves  had  been  declared  real  estate  by  an  act  of  Virginia,  passed  in 
1705  and  confirmed  by  a  later  one  about  1725.     The  Board  steadily  refused 
to  permit  any  changes  from  that  definition.     In  a  letter  to  Governor  Fauquier, 
May  6,  1763,  the  Board  said:     "The  royal  negative  has  been  twice  given  to 
the  proposition  of  making  slaves  personal  estate,  and  after  fullest  considera 
tion,  both  by  this  Board  and  by  His  Majesty  in  council,  so  it  would  not  be 
come  us,  whatever  our  opinion  might  be,  to  revive  the  discussion  of  it;  but 
as  we  are  convinced  of  the  rectitude  of  that  principle  of  policy  which  has 
made  slaves  real  estate,  and  annex'd  them  to  the  plant's,  in  all  British  colo 
nies  which  depend  on  slave  labor,  we  cannot  approve  this  bill,  and  are  at 
a  loss  to  guess  what  motive  could  have  induced  the  Virginia  legislature  to 
attempt  to  subvert  a  policy  long  established,  which  has  after  forty  years 
experience  been  found  so  beneficial  and  advantageous  as  this  is  represented 
to  have  been."  — C.O.  5,  1368,  p.  226. 


TREATMENT  OF  COLONIAL  LEGISLATION   263 

way  of  the  collection  of  debts,  private  bills  were  care 
fully  hedged  about  with  legal  restrictions,  judicial 
procedure  was  kept  closely  patterned  after  that  of 
England,  and  much  was  done  to  prevent  the  introduc 
tion  of  innovations  of  uncertain  value. 

Under  the  threat  of  repeal  if  they  refused  to  com 
ply,  the  assemblies  were  forced  to  consent  to  modifi 
cations  of  revenue  measures  which  the  governor  and 
council  had  been  unable  or  unwilling  to  secure;  and 
in  case  of  the  Pennsylvania  law  taxing  the  proprietary 
estates,  the  agents  of  the  province,  in  order  to  pre 
vent  its  disallowance,  entered  into  bonds  before  the 
Board  to  secure  certain  amendments.618  Last  but  not 
least,  the  Board  was  able  to  prevent  the  enactment  or 
secure  the  repeal  of  unjust  or  discriminating  laws  thus 
affording  the  residents  of  the  colonies  some  protec 
tion  against  the  action  of  an  ignorant  or  partisan  as 
sembly. 

Method  of  disallowance 

Having  examined  the  causes  for  repealing  colonial 
legislation,  let  us  now  consider  the  method  of  pro- 

eis  "\ye  the  undersigned,  Benjamin  Franklin  and  Robert  Charles,  agents 
for  the  province  of  Pennsylvania,  do  hereby  consent,  that  in  case  an  act 
passed  in  the  said  province  in  April,  1759,  entitled  'An  Act  for  granting  to 
His  Majesty  the  sum  of  one  hundred  thousand  pounds  and  for  striking  the 
same  in  bills  of  credit  .  .  .  and  for  providing  a  fund  for  sinking  the 
said  bills  of  credit  by  a  tax  on  all  estates  real  and  personal  and  taxables 
within  this  province'  shall  not  be  repealed  by  His  Majesty  in  council,  we, 
the  said  agents,  do  undertake  that  the  assembly  of  Pennsylvania  will  prepare 
and  pass  and  offer  to  the  governor  of  the  said  province  of  Pennsylvania,  an 
act  to  amend  the  aforementioned  act  according  to  the  amendments  proposed 
in  the  report  made  by  the  Lords  of  the  Committee  of  Council  this 
day  .  .  .  and  will  indemnify  the  proprietaries  from  any  damage  that 
they  may  sustain  by  such  act  not  being  so  prepared  and  passed  by  the 
assembly  and  offered  to  the  governor.  Witness  our  hands  this  twenty-eighth 
day  of  August,  1760."  —  Pennsylvania  Statutes  at  Large,  vol.  v,  656-657. 


264        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

cedure  by  which  a  law  was  finally  disallowed.  The 
laws  were  transmitted  to  England  and  could  come 
before  the  Board  of  Trade  in  any  one  of  four  ways. 
They  could  be  delivered  to  one  of  the  principal  secre 
taries  of  state,  who  would  either  transmit  them  to  the 
Board  or  lay  them  before  the  council.  In  the  latter 
case  they  were  referred  to  the  Committee  of  Council, 
which  in  turn  referred  them  to  the  Board.619  As  the 
crown  lawyers  had  held  that  the  time  clause  limiting 
repeals  dated  from  the  time  the  laws  were  submitted 
to  the  Privy  Council,  it  was  to  the  interest  of  the 
colony  to  submit  them  to  the  council  with  the  least 
possible  delay.  The  most  expeditious  way  to  do  this 
was  to  deliver  them  to  the  clerk  of  the  Privy  Council. 
In  such  cases  the  laws  went  by  reference  to  the  com 
mittee  and  thence  to  the  Board,  which  was  the  third 
method  and  the  one  most  frequently  used  by  the  Mas 
sachusetts  agents.  Lastly,  the  laws  could  be  deliv 
ered  directly  to  the  Board  of  Trade.  This  practice 
was  abandoned  by  Massachusetts  and  Pennsylvania 
because  the  Board  claimed  the  power  to  have  a  law 
disallowed  at  any  time,  unless  it  had  been  before  the 
Privy  Council. 

No  matter  how  and  to  what  officers  the  laws  were 
submitted  in  the  first  instance,  they  were  always  ulti 
mately  referred  to  the  Board  of  Trade  for  considera 
tion.  The  first  point  to  be  settled  was,  whether  a 
law  conflicted  with  any  act  of  Parliament.  The  mem 
bers  of  the  Board  did  not  presume  to  pass  on  ques 
tions  of  that  kind,  but  referred  them  to  its  legal  ad 
visers.  Whatever  laws  affected  the  customs  or  the 
admiralty  in  any  way  were  referred  to  the  comission- 

619  Before  1721  the  reference  was  usually  directly  to  the  Board  of  Trade. 


TREATMENT  OF  COLONIAL  LEGISLATION   265 

ers  of  customs  or  to  the  admiralty  board  respectively 
for  their  opinion.  These  officials  confined  their  ob 
servations  wholly  to  the  effect  of  the  law  upon  their 
own  field  of  activity.620 

The  Bishop  of  London  was  always  consulted  in  re 
gard  to  laws  which  in  any  way  might  affect  his  ec 
clesiastical  jurisdiction,  or  which  concerned  religious 
conditions,  or  regulated  morals.  He  was  quite  ready 
to  give  his  opinion  and  even  insisted  upon  being 
heard.  The  Journal  of  the  Board  frequently  has 
entries  like  the  following: 

The  Lord  Bishop  of  London  desired  the  board  when  the 
acts  of  New  York  and  of  the  Leeward  Islands  shall  come 
under  consideration,  that  they  would  be  mindful  of  his  ob 
jections  against  the  particular  acts  mentioned  in  the  minutes 
of  June  1 5th  last.621 

The  Lord  Bishop  of  London  desired  that  an  act  past  in  the 
Massachusetts  Bay  entitled  An  Act  more  effectually  providing 
for  the  support  of  Ministers  .  .  .  may  not  be  confirmed 
by  His  Majesty  'till  he  be  heard  thereupon.622 

Ordered  that  the  Bishop  of  London  be  notified  that  the 
Board  wish  to  speak  with  him,  Tuesday  morning  next.623 

Many  other  illustrations  could  be  cited,  but  enough 
have  been  given  to  show  the  general  custom  of  the 
Board  in  the  matter.624 

If  a  law  did  not  seem  to  affect  any  particular  de- 

620  See  the  correspondence  in  regard  to  the  Massachusetts  act  of  1716, 
fixing  fees  in  the  admiralty  offices,  in  Massachusetts  Acts  and  Resolves,  vol. 
ii,  68-69. 

621  Quoted    from   the   Journal   of   December    3,    1702,    in    Pennsylvania 
Statutes  at  Large,  vol.  ii,  461. 

622  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  May  24,  1704;  Massachusetts  Acts  and  Re 
solves,  vol.  i,  505. 

623  Journal,  November  10,  1727;  Massachusetts  Acts  and  Resolves,  vol. 
ii,  481. 

624  Cross  in  his  Anglican  Episcopate  and  the  American  Colonies  does  not 
discuss  this  important  phase  of  the  Bishop  of  London's  work. 


266        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

partment  of  the  home  government,  it  was  sent  to  one 
of  the  crown  lawyers  for  an  opinion  "in  point  of 
law,"  and  there  it  was  likely  to  remain  until  some  one 
paid  that  officer  his  fee  and  saw  that  he  made  his  re 
port.  If  no  one  looked  after  the  act,  it  might  remain 
in  his  hands  for  years.  This  was  especially  true  of 
private  acts,  and  the  Board  frequently  reminded  the 
governors  that  interested  parties  should  have  an  agent 
on  hand  to  attend  to  such  matters.625  For  the  same  rea 
son  it  insisted  upon  each  colony  maintaining  a  repre 
sentative  to  look  after  public  laws,  and  in  the  course 
of  time  this  was  done.626 

As  it  was  to  the  interest  of  each  colony  to  secure 
a  favorable  report  from  the  attorney  to  whom  the 
laws  had  been  referred,  an  active  agent  began  his 
campaign  for  their  confirmation  with  that  official. 
By  calling  on  him  and  explaining  the  purpose  and 
the  necessity  of  each  law,  he  could  frequently  secure  a 
favorable  report,  which  otherwise  might  have  been 
adverse.627 

625  June  4,  1719,  the  Board  commented  on  a  private  act  of  Massachusetts, 
and   after  stating  that  the   act   itself  was  unobjectionable   added:     "Some 
persons  should  be  appointed  here  to  solicit  the  dispatch  of  this  and  all  other 
private  acts,  and  to  pay  the  fees  in  the  several  offices,  when  His  Majesty's 
pleasure  is   declared   upon  them."     At   the   same  time  it  wrote   Governor 
Shute:     "It  will  be  necessary  for  the  future  that  when  any  private  bills  are 
sent  over,  the  parties  concerned  in  those  acts  do  appoint  some  person  here 
to  solicit  the  dispatch  of  them,  otherways  they  will  lie  unconfirmed."  —  C.O. 
5,  9*5.  PP-  20,  276. 

626  September  4,  1701,  the  Board  wrote  Governor  Blakiston  of  Maryland, 
"We  wonder  the  Assembly  should  not  think  fit  to  constitute  an  agent  for 
soliciting  their  affairs  here.     There  are  occasions  (tho'  not  at  our  Board)  in 
which  business  cannot  be  done  without  some  charge:  and  inconveniences  have 
arisen  by  the  delay  of  reports  upon  some  laws,  and  otherwise;  all  of  which 
will  grow  worse  and  worse  if  some  fit  person  be  not  appointed  to  look  after 
such  like  matters."  —  C.O.  5,  726,  p.  99. 

627  "The  fate  of  the  act  depends  in  a  great  measure  on  this  gentleman's 


TREATMENT  OF  COLONIAL  LEGISLATION   267 

When  the  opinion  of  the  attorneys  had  been  re 
ceived  the  Board  was  ready  for  the  serious  consider 
ation  of  the  law.  Here  again  the  work  of  a  friendly 
agent  was  of  the  utmost  importance.  The  Board 
could  not  possibly  know  the  local  demands  for  a  law, 
which  on  its  face  appeared  objectionable,  and  had  to 
depend  upon  such  information  as  the  legislature  or  its 
representative  might  furnish.  On  several  occasions 
the  Board  had  already  prepared  a  formal  represen 
tation  for  the  repeal  of  acts,  when  the  appearance  of 
some  one  familiar  with  conditions  in  the  colony  from 
which  the  acts  came  changed  the  whole  appearance 
of  things,  and  caused  the  Board  to  abandon  its  rep 
resentation,  and  allow  the  acts  to  remain  in  force.628 

The  whole  method  of  procedure  can  best  be  seen, 
however,  in  a  typical  case,  such  as  the  repeal  of  the 
Massachusetts  Act  of  1722  which  laid  a  tax  on  the 
Quaker  towns  of  Dartmouth  and  Tiverton  for  the 

report;  and  which  report  must  again  entirely  depend  upon  the  idea,  and 
information  he  receives  of  the  reasons,  circumstances  and  views  with  which 
the  act  was  passed  in  the  provincial  Assembly.  Here  is  the  heavy  and 
useful  part  of  the  duty  of  an  agent;  to  attend  the  reporting  counsel,  to  ex 
plain  circumstances,  and  lead  his  opinion  to  a  report  favorable  to  the  wishes 
of  the  province  for  which  he  acts;  as  a  person  in  the  reporting  counsel's 
situation  must  be  unacquainted  with  a  thousand  things  an  agent  can  ex 
plain,  and  consequently  without  his  information  be  liable  to  many  mis 
takes."  —  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  vol.  v,  747. 

628  May  28,  1754,  the  Board  ordered  a  representation  prepared  for  the 
repeal  of  nine  acts  of  South  Carolina.  June  26,  Mr.  Crockatt,  agent  for 
that  colony,  was  called  in  and  allowed  to  present  reasons  why  one  of  the 
acts  should  be  allowed  to  stand.  After  he  was  gone,  the  Board  agreed  to 
allow  the  act  to  "lie  by  probationary."  June  3,  1763,  Governor  Ellis  of 
Georgia,  who  had  just  returned  to  England,  appeared  before  the  Board  and 
presented  facts  justifying  a  Georgia  law  for  the  speedy  collection  of  small 
debts,  a  representation  for  the  repeal  of  which  was  already  drawn.  After 
he  withdrew  the  Board  decided  not  to  repeal  the  act,  and  ordered  changes 
to  that  effect  made  in  the  representation.  See :  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  62 ; 
69,  pp.  281-283. 


268        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

support  of  Congregational  ministers.  The  assessors 
of  the  two  towns  refused  to  assess  the  tax  and  were 
consequently  thrown  into  prison.  They  at  once  pre 
pared  a  petition  to  the  king,  which  complained  of  the 
injustice  of  the  act  in  question  and  asked  that  they  be 
released.  The  Lords  Justices  in  Council  referred  the 
petition  to  the  Committee  of  Council,  which  in  turn 
referred  it  (October  24,  1723)  to  the  Board  of  Trade 
for  consideration.629 

In  the  meantime,  the  act  in  question  had  been  re- 
enacted,  and  this  fact  was  stated  in  the  petition.  The 
Board  considered  the  matter  on  November  14,  and 
as  the  act  of  1723  had  not  as  yet  been  received,  that 
of  1722  only  was  sent  to  Mr.  West  for  his  "opinion 
in  point  of  law."  On  November  20  the  agents  for  the 
Quakers  attended  the  Board,  and  were  informed  that 
the  act  was  with  Mr.  West  and  that  it  would  be  con 
sidered  as  soon  as  his  opinion  should  be  received. 

December  10,  Mr.  West  reported  that  he  had  been 
attended  by  the  agents  for  the  Quakers,  as  well  as  that 
for  the  province,  and  thinking  "the  whole  of  the  com 
plaint  was  not  within  the  intention  of  your  Lordship's 
reference  to  me,  as  no  circumstance  of  what  they  al- 
ledged  did  in  any  manner  appear  upon  the  face  of  the 
act  itself,  and  that  therefore  my  duty  in  obedience  to 
your  Lordship's  commands  was  only  to  certify  that 
upon  consideration  of  the  act  as  it  stands  simply  upon 
the  record  I  have  no  objection  in  point  of  law  to  its 
being  confirmed."  63° 

This  report  was  received  by  the  Board  the  same 
day,  and  two  days  later  the  agents  were  notified  that 

629  Massachusetts  Acts  and  Resolves,  vol.  ii,  251-257,  272-273. 

630  —  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  272-273. 


TREATMENT  OF  COLONIAL  LEGISLATION   269 

the  act  would  be  considered  at  the  meeting  one  week 
hence.  The  meeting  was  held  on  the  appointed  day 
and  was  attended  by  Mr.  Richardson  and  Mr.  Par 
tridge  with  their  solicitor,  Mr.  Sharpe,  in  behalf  of 
the  Quakers.  The  province  was  represented  by  its 
agents,  Mr.  Sandford  and  Mr.  Sanderson,  assisted 
by  their  solicitor,  Mr.  Bampfield.  Each  attorney 
presented  proofs  and  arguments  in  support  of  his  side 
of  the  case,  and  was  given  a  chance  to  reply  to  the 
proofs  and  arguments  of  his  opponent.  After  the 
formal  hearing  the  agents  and  their  attorneys  with 
drew,  and  the  secretary  was  ordered  to  prepare  the 
draft  of  a  representation  to  the  Lords  Justices  for  the 
repeal  of  the  act  of  1722,  which  was  agreed  to  and 
signed  the  following  day,  and  transmitted  to  the  office 
of  the  Privy  Council. 

January  14,  1724,  an  Order  in  Council  referred 
this  representation  to  the  Committee  of  the  Privy 
Council  to  be  considered  and  reported  upon.  As  that 
committee  delayed  action,  Mr.  Partridge  petitioned 
the  Board  that  the  act  of  1723  should  also  be  sent  up 
to  the  council,  and  in  accordance  with  this  petition, 
a  representation  was  at  once  prepared  for  the  repeal 
of  that  act.  This  representation,  like  the  previous  one, 
was  referred  to  the  Committee  of  Council.  That 
body  then  took  the  two  representations  into  consid 
eration  and  recommended  that  the  acts  of  both  1722 
and  1723  should  be  disallowed  and  that  the  taxes  of 
the  two  towns  should  be  remitted,  which  was  prompt 
ly  done  by  an  Order  in  Council.631 

What  was  done  in  the  above  case  is  fairly  typical 
of  the  action  in  other  instances,  although  the  proced- 

631  Massachusetts  Acts  and  Resolves,  vol.  ii,  273-277. 


270        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

ure  varied  with  the  amount  of  opposition  the  inter 
ested  parties  offered  each  other.  The  contest  over  the 
above  act  might  well  have  been  carried  to  the  Com 
mittee  of  Council,  where  the  hearing  was  by  counsel 
only. 

Motions  before  the  committee  were  regularly  of 
three  kinds,  to  confirm  a  report  of  the  Board,  to  op 
pose  it,  or  to  have  it  recommitted.  If  the  latter  mo 
tion  should  be  successful,  the  whole  question  might 
be  gone  over  again  before  the  Board,  and  the  second 
report  of  that  body  would  go  through  the  same  forms 
as  did  the  first.  If  on  the  other  hand  the  motion  to 
oppose  was  successful,  the  committee  made  a  report 
different  from  that  of  the  Board,  which  amounted  to 
a  reversal  of  the  action  of  that  body.  Such  occur 
rences  were  not  frequent,  although  they  did  happen.682 

Sometimes  a  representation  was  dropped  in  the 
Privy  Council  at  the  request  of  the  Board  itself,  as 
was  the  case  of  one  for  the  repeal  of  the  various  acts 
of  New  Hampshire  for  the  creation  of  counties.63' 
At  other  times  they  were  pigeonholed  or  lost  by  the 
committee  to  which  they  were  referred,634  and  in  some 

632  An  illustration  of  this  has  been  given  in  the  case  of  the  report  of  the 
Board  on  the  New  York  revenue  act  of  1720.  On  the  whole  the  Board  was 
very  slow  to  disallow  an  act  that  would  cause  any  great  amount  of  incon 
venience  in  a  colony.  It  preferred  to  warn  the  governor  of  the  irregularity 
of  the  law,  and  depend  upon  him  to  secure  its  modification.  See  the  action 
on  the  New  York  revenue  acts,  in  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vols.  v,  vi, 
passim.  Also  the  action  on  the  Massachusetts  bankruptcy  law,  in  Massa 
chusetts  Acts  and  Resolves,  vol.  iv,  443-444. 

638  This  representation  was  made  July  9,  1752,  and  referred  to  the  Com 
mittee  on  Plantation  Affairs.  No  further  action  was  taken,  as  the  Board 
informed  the  Council  on  December  22,  following,  that  the  disorders  in  New 
Hampshire  had  apparently  ceased;  consequently  the  matter  was  dropped. 
See:  C.O.  5,  941,  pp.  277-280,  293-294;  Privy  Council  Register,  "George  II," 
vol.  xiv,  1 80. 

634  This  appears  to  have  been  true  in  the  case  of  the  New  Jersey  act  of 


TREATMENT  OF  COLONIAL  LEGISLATION   271 

cases  they  were  referred  to  the  committee  and  a  day 
set  for  a  hearing,  but  no  further  action  taken.635  Con 
sequently  a  considerable  number  of  acts  which  the 
Board  recommended  for  disallowance  were  never  re 
pealed,  simply  because  no  positive  action  was  taken 
by  the  Privy  Council. 

Such  a  method  of  repeal  could  not  be  called  arbi 
trary,  for  it  had  thrown  around  it  at  every  point  all 
the  forms  of  legal  procedure.  No  law  could  be  dis 
allowed  except  after  an  opportunity  had  been  given 
all  parties  concerned  to  oppose  such  action.  The 
Board  really  gave  to  every  person  concerned  due 
process  of  law:  each  party  had  his  day  in  court;  and 
after  the  Board  had  acted,  it  was  always  possible 
to  carry  the  case  up  to  the  committee,  where  a  judicial 
review  of  the  action  of  the  Board  could  be  had.  In 
fact  it  was  very  similar  to  a  system  of  repeals  by  the 
action  of  a  superior  court.  It  is  no  exaggeration  to 
say  that  our  own  Supreme  Court  declares  state  laws 
unconstitutional  with  even  less  ceremony  than  the 
Board  used  in  disallowing  colonial  acts.636 

1748  for  determining  its  boundary  with  New  York.  Such  also  appears  to 
have  been  the  final  disposition  of  the  Massachusetts  act  of  1735  to  prevent 
the  use  of  paper  money  in  that  colony  which  had  been  issued  by  a  private 
corporation  in  New  Hampshire.  See:  Privy  Council  Register,  "George  II," 
vol.  iv,  473,  484,  485,  vol.  xiv,  442,  456,  499. 

635  A  South  Carolina  act  of  1731,  for  the  remission  of  quit  rents,  was 
recommended  for  repeal  by  the  Board,  November  i,  1732.     The  representa 
tion  was  opposed  by  the  agent  for  the  colony,  and  the  whole  matter  referred 
to  a  committee   as  usual.     July  25,   1733,  the   committee  set  "Wednesday 
next"  for  a  hearing  on  the  question,  but  the  record  fails  to  show  any  action 
whatever  on  "Wednesday  next"  or  any  later  day,  nor  is  any  reason  given 
for    the    nonconsideration    of    the    matter.     See:    Privy    Council    Register, 
"George  II,"  vol.  iii,  73,  74,  81,  210. 

636  What  has  been  said  of  the  method  of  disallowing  colonial  laws  applies 
equally  to  their  confirmation.     There  was  no  difference  whatever  in  the 
procedure. 


272        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

If  one  were  to  criticise  the  methods  of  repeal,  it 
would  have  to  be  on  the  ground  of  too  much  red  tape. 
The  almost  numberless  references  from  one  board 
and  from  one  officer  to  another,  and  the  possibility 
for  delays  and  dilatory  motions,  make  the  procedure 
seem  cumbersome.  Yet  it  may  have  been  better  that 
these  delays  should  exist,  for  they  gave  the  colonies 
a  better  opportunity  to  justify  their  legislation.  In 
case  of  urgent  necessity,  however,  the  Board  could 
secure  prompt  action;  so  that  the  red  tape  was  not 
always  a  hindrance  to  efficiency. 

When  a  law  was  disallowed,  notice  of  the  fact  was 
sent  to  the  governor  of  the  province,  who  saw  that  it 
was  entered  in  the  law  books.  It  is  possible  this  was 
not  always  done,  and  no  doubt  the  notice  sometimes 
failed  to  reach  the  colony,637  for  Governor  Golden  in 
a  letter  to  the  Board  in  1761  says, 

I  am  told  that  several  acts  in  Basket's  edition  of  the  acts  of 
New  York  in  1718,  are  noted  to  be  repealed,  of  which  repeal 
not  the  least  evidence  appears  anywhere  in  this  province. 
This  may  deserve  your  Lordship's  attention,  as  I  make  no 
doubt  the  judges  continue  to  proceed  upon  them  as  of  force.638 

It  does  not  appear  from  the  record  whether  Golden 
was  correctly  informed  or  not,  but  it  is  not  improb 
able  that  such  things  as  he  mentions  could  have  hap 
pened. 

Considerable  confusion  sometimes  resulted  from 
the  repeal  of  laws  which  were  in  force,  and  often 
the  Board  refrained  from  recommending  a  royal  veto 
solely  because  of  the  inconvenience  it  would  produce 

637  Cf.  the  disallowance  of  the  Massachusetts  act  of  1757  creating  the 
town  of  Danvers,  in  Massachusetts  Acts  and  Resolves,  vol.  iv,  93-94. 
ess  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  vii,  454-455. 


TREATMENT  OF  COLONIAL  LEGISLATION   273 

in  the  colony  affected.  But  serious  irregularities 
could  not  be  allowed  to  grow,  and  the  Board  felt  com 
pelled  to  act  at  times,  regardless  of  the  results  to  the 
persons  who  had  disregarded  ordinary  restrictions. 
As  it  said  in  regard  to  a  series  of  extraordinary  laws 
of  New  Hampshire: 

The  practice  of  passing  laws  of  this  nature,  without  clauses 
suspending  their  execution  until  Your  Majesty's  pleasure 
can  be  known,  is  of  such  a  dangerous  tendency  and  example, 
and  many  of  the  laws  are  themselves  so  unconstitutional  and 
unjust,  that  we  fear  it  will  be  necessary,  that  Your  Majesty's 
disallowance  of  them  should  be  made  public  in  order  to  deter 
the  legislatures  of  Your  Majesty's  colonies  from  assuming 
powers  and  taking  cognizance  of  matters  that  do  constitu 
tionally  belong  to  the  Courts  of  Justice  alone.639 

The  control  exercised  by  the  Board  over  legislation 
was  no  doubt  often  irritating  to  the  colonists,  just  as 
the  invalidation  of  laws  by  the  courts  is  irritating  to 
both  state  and  nation,  at  times,  in  the  United  States. 
Some  of  the  restrictions  imposed  by  the  Board  were 
evaded  by  means  of  temporary  laws,  but  the  impor 
tance  of  these  has  probably  been  overrated,  as  they 
could  be  successful  only  to  a  limited  extent.  They 
could  not  be  used  for  the  regulation  of  courts  and 
judicial  procedure,  for  private  acts,  nor  for  the  regu 
lation  of  commerce.  Taken  all  together,  the  royal 
veto  proved  a  pretty  effective  check  upon  even  the 
charter  colonies,  as  witness  the  action  of  Massachu 
setts  in  regard  to  its  bankruptcy  law. 

An  examination  of  the  laws  of  Pennsylvania  shows 
that  the  legislature  of  that  colony  tried  very  seriously 

639  Representation  for  the  repeal  of  sixteen  laws  (mostly  private  acts)  of 
New  Hampshire,  July  10,  1764,  in  C.O.  5,  942,  p.  266. 


274        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

and  honestly  to  correct  such  laws  as  were  repealed 
because  they  were  defective,  arbitrary,  or  absurd  in 
their  provisions.  The  members  of  the  legislature 
evidently  made  a  serious  effort  also  to  have  their  laws 
conform  to  the  laws  of  England  when  inconsistencies 
were  pointed  out.640  Probably  no  other  part  of  the 
British  administrative  machinery  worked  so  effective 
ly  as  did  that  for  the  control  of  colonial  legislation, 
especially  when  one  considers  the  common  willing 
ness  of  the  provincial  governors  to  evade  their  in 
structions  and  permit  forbidden  practices. 

Appeals  to  the  King  in  Council 

There  is  an  obvious  difference  between  repealing, 
or  disallowing,  a  law  and  declaring  it  null  and  void. 
The  latter  action  was  not  taken  very  frequently,  the 
most  familiar  instance  being  that  of  the  action  of  the 
Privy  Council  in  the  case  of  Winthrop  vs.  Lechmere. 
The  charter  of  Connecticut  did  not  reserve  to  the 
crown  the  right  of  a  royal  veto  of  the  laws  passed  by 
the  colonial  legislature,  and  the  colony  steadily  re 
sisted  any  attempt  by  the  home  government  to  exer 
cise  such  authority.  The  charter  did,  however,  re 
quire  all  colonial  laws  not  to  be  contrary  to  the  laws 
of  England.  When  the  intestates'  law  came  before 
the  Privy  Council,  in  the  case  mentioned  above,  it 
was  declared  null  and  void  because  it  was  opposed 
to  the  common  law  of  England.  This  action 
amounted  to  more  than  a  disallowance  of  the  law,  for 

840  See:  Pennsylvania  Statutes  at  Large,  vol.  ii,  191,  438.  Note  how 
carefully  many  of  the  laws,  repealed  in  1706  on  the  recommendation  of  the 
Board,  are  changed  when  reenacted  so  as  to  meet  specific  objections.  Note 
especially  how  the  law  of  1706  providing  for  the  succession  of  authority  in 


TREATMENT  OF  COLONIAL  LEGISLATION   275 

all  settlements  previously  made  under  color  of  the  act 
were  invalidated. 

The  Board  of  Trade  was  not  even  consulted  in  the 
above  transaction,  but  the  entire  proceedings  were 
conducted  before  the  Committee  of  the  Privy  Coun 
cil.  As  the  decision  was  afterwards  reversed  in  the 
case  of  Clark  vs.  Tousey,  several  explanations  for  the 
first  decision  have  been  offered.  Ferdinando  John 
Paris,  who  was  present  at  the  time,  offers  an  expla 
nation  quite  different  from  those  usually  given.  He 
lays  no  stress  whatever  upon  the  question  of  confir 
mation  or  lack  of  confirmation,  as,  according  to  the 
Connecticut  charter,  that  question  should  have  made 
no  legal  difference.  He  ascribes  the  whole  success 
of  Winthrop  to  the  fact  that  the  attorneys  for  Lech- 
mere  were  grossly  incompetent. 

In  the  course  of  the  hearing  before  the  committee, 
the  attorneys  for  Winthrop, 

Boldly  put  it  upon  Mr.  Lechmere's  Coll  to  shew  that  that 
distributory  act  had  ever,  once,  been  followed  or  carried  into 
execution  in  Connecticut;  and  they  were  so  very  poorly  in 
structed  that  they  did  not  in  return,  offer  to  shew  that  it 
had.641 

The  attorneys  for  Winthrop  on  this  occasion  were 
Attorney-general  Yorke  and  Solicitor-general  Tal- 
bot. 

Yorke  afterwards  became  Lord  Chancellor  Hard- 
wicke  and  as  such  gave  the  decision  in  the  case  of 
Phillips  vs.  Savage,  which  was  in  form  a  reversal  of 

the  absence  of  a  governor,  which  was  disallowed  in  1709,  was  reenacted  in 
1712  with  exactly  the  changes  required,  and  how  it  was  confirmed  in  1714. 

641  Letter  of  Paris  to  Jeremiah  Allen,  July  26,  1738,  in  Connecticut  His 
torical  Society  Collections,  vol.  v,  78. 


276        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

the  case  he  had  won  for  his  client,  Winthrop.     Paris 
says  that  in  giving  his  opinion  in  this  case  he  said, 

That  he  had  been  of  council  for  Mr.  Winthrop  in  his  case 
formerly.  That  as  his  Coll,  he  had  at  such  time,  ofrer'd  all 
that  he  cou'd  for  his  clyent,  to  get  the  Connecticut  Act  re 
pealed  and  ye  Ordrs  reverst.  That  tho  he  had  prevail'd 
therein  for  his  clyent,  yet,  with  very  great  deference  to  those 
Lords  who  judged  in  that  case,  he  was  not  satisfied  in  his 
own  private  opinion  with  that  determination  in  Winthrop's 
case.642 

It  thus  appears  that  Lechmere's  counsel  allowed 
themselves  to  be  bluffed  and  so  lost  the  case,  and  that 
even  the  attorneys  who  won  considered  the  decision  as 
not  in  accordance  with  sound  legal  principles.  Be 
sides  this  irregularity,  there  was  another  innovation 
in  the  decision.  Winthrop's  petition  only  asked  for 
general  relief;  but  on  the  failure  of  Lechmere's  coun 
sel  to  show  that  the  law  had  ever  been  carried  into 
execution,  it  was  declared  void,  "At  once,  without 
any  Reference  to  the  Board  of  Trade"  a  thing  that 
"was  never  done  in  any  one  case,  before  or  since,  to  my 
knowledge."  643 

This  case  illustrates  the  close  connection  between 
the  Board  of  Trade  and  the  Committee  of  Council 
which  passed  upon  appeals  from  the  colonies.  If  an 
appeal  involved  a  purely  judicial  question,  such,  for 
instance,  as  a  claim  that  the  colonial  courts  had  erred 
in  giving  a  decision,  it  was  settled  by  the  committee 
without  a  reference  to  the  Board;  but  if  the  appeal 
turned  upon  a  colonial  law  or  the  official  action  of  an 
officer,  it  was  regularly  referred  to  that  body  for 

642  Connecticut  Historical  Society  Collections,  vol.  v,  81. 

643  Paris  to  Allen,  July  26,  1738,  Ibid.,  78. 


TREATMENT  OF  COLONIAL  LEGISLATION   277 

consideration.  Such,  for  instance,  was  the  case  in  the 
appeal  of  the  Quakers  of  Dartmouth  and  Tiverton 
cited  above,  which  could  not  be  decided  without  pass 
ing  upon  the  law  under  which  they  had  been  con 
victed.  The  consideration  of  the  law  and  the  expedi 
ency  of  repealing  it  was  the  legitimate  work  of  the 
Board,  and  the  final  decision  of  the  whole  matter 
rested  upon  the  report  of  that  body. 

As  Paris  points  out,  the  action  on  Winthrop's  ap 
peal  should  have  followed  the  regular  lines  of  pro 
cedure  in  similar  cases.  The  attorneys  for  Lechmere 
should  have  petitioned,  in  case  the  legal  question  was 
decided  against  their  client,  that  they  be  heard  in  favor 
of  the  law.  Such  a  motion  would  have  separated  the 
purely  judicial  question  from  the  question  of  policy 
involved  in  the  repeal  or  disallowance  of  a  colonial 
statute.  The  second  question  would  have  gone  to  the 
Board  for  consideration,  and  the  effects  of  the  actual 
operation  of  the  law  would  then  have  been  brought 
out.  This  action  was  taken  in  the  case  of  Phillips  vs. 
Savage,  and  the  petition  was  granted;  but  as  the  de 
cision  of  the  committee  was  contrary  to  the  contention 
of  Phillips,  it  was  not  necessary  to  enter  into  any  par 
ticular  defence  of  the  law  itself. 

During  its  earlier  years,  especially,  the  Board  was 
frequently  called  upon  to  decide  whether  an  appeal 
from  the  colonies  should  be  admitted.  When  a  de 
mand  was  made  for  an  appeal  and  there  was  some 
doubt  as  to  whether  it  should  be  admitted,  the  case 
was  referred  to  the  Board  of  Trade  for  investigation ; 
if  it  decided  the  case  was  properly  one  of  appeal, 
steps  were  taken  to  admit  it.  This  was  the  action  in 


278        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

the  case  of  John  and  Nicholas  Hallam's  appeal  from 
Connecticut,644  the  Atwood  and  Bayard  case  from 
New  York,645  and  numerous  others. 

It  is  thus  seen  that  Miss  Kellogg's  statement  that, 

The  judicial  functions  of  the  council  in  hearing  appeals  from 
the  colonial  courts  and  taking  action  thereon  were  never 
transferred  to  the  new  administrative  body,  thus  the  Privy 
Council  remained  throughout  the  entire  period  of  American 
colonial  history  what  it  still  is  for  the  British  imperial  sys 
tem,  the  final  and  supreme  court  for  colonial  appeals,646 

is  true  for  purely  legal  questions  only. 

If  an  appeal  from  a  colonial  court  involved,  as 
many  did,  the  validity  of  a  colonial  law  or  some  mis 
conduct  on  the  part  of  a  royal  officer,  the  Board  of 
Trade  considered  that  portion  of  it  which  involved 
a  question  of  administration.647  In  some  cases  it  was 
difficult  to  separate  these  two  points,  which  accounts 
for  such  decisions  as  that  of  Winthrop  vs.  Lechmere. 
The  distinction  is  one  of  considerable  importance,  for 
a  question  which  came  before  the  Board  was  decided 
upon  its  merits,  while  the  committee  in  considering 
an  appeal  did  not  pass  upon  the  merits  of  the  case, 

644  "Upon  the  Petition  of  John  and  Nicholas  Hallam,  complaining  that 
the  governor  and  company  of  Connecticut  had  refused  to  admit  them  to 
appeal  to  your  Majesty  in  Council  here  from  a  sentence  past  in  a  Court  of 
Assistants  of  that  colony  in  the  month  of  May,  1700,  relating  to  the  last  will 
and  testament  of  John  Liven  of  the  said  colony,  deceased"  we  advised  with 
your  attorney-  and  solicitor-general  "and  humbly  offer  that  your  Majesty  be 
pleased  to  admit  the  Appeal." —  Representation  of  the  Board,  May  27,  1701, 
in  C.O.  5,  1289,  pp.  99-100. 

645  See  the  Board  of  Trade  Journal  [14,  pp.  453-454,   15,  pp.   i,   135] 
for  April  and  May,  1702,  for  the  action  in  this  case. 

646  "The  American  Colonial  Charter,"  in  American  Historical  Associa 
tion  Report  for  /poj,  vol.  i,  209. 

647  Cf.  Hazeltine's  "Appeals  from  Colonial  Courts"  in  American  His 
torical  Association  Report  for  1894,  350. 


TREATMENT  OF  COLONIAL  LEGISLATION   279 

but  only  upon  the  regularity  of  the  procedure  in  the 
lower  courts. 

The  above  point  becomes  clearer  if  one  considers 
the  kind  of  appeals  which  the  Board  instructed  the 
governors  to  permit. 

It  appears  upon  a  retrospective  view  .  .  .  that  from  the 
first  institution  of  government  under  commission  and  in 
structions  from  King  James  the  Second,  down  to  the  year 
*753>  the  liberty  of  appealing  to  the  governor  and  council 
from  the  judgments  of  the  Inferior  Courts  of  Common  Law 
was  expressly  confined,  first  by  a  clause  in  the  commission, 
and  in  later  times  by  an  article  in  the  governors'  instructions, 
to  cases  of  error  only.648 

This  article  was  revised  in  1753,  and  the  clause  con 
fining  appeals  to  cases  of  error  only  was  omitted.  Al 
though  the  instructions  on  this  point  were  the  same 
to  all  the  governors,  no  question  arose  as  to  their 
meaning  until  1764.  In  that  year  Governor  Golden 
of  New  York  admitted  an  appeal  from  a  judgment 
of  an  inferior  court,  which  was  founded  upon  the 
verdict  of  a  jury.  This  was  an  extension  of  the  right 
of  appeal  which  neither  the  judges  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  New  York  nor  the  members  of  Colden's 
council  were  willing  to  admit;  consequently  they  pro 
tested  to  the  Board  of  Trade.649 

That  body  compared  the  clause  in  Colden's  instruc 
tions  with  the  earlier  ones  on  the  subject,  and  ren 
dered  the  following  decision: 

We  do  conceive  that  the  alteration  was  solely  intended  to 
avoid  an  ambiguity  in  the  expression  that  might  have  ad 
mitted  a  doubt  whether  liberty  of  appeal  did  not  extend  to 

648  Report  of  the  Board  of  Trade  on  appeals  from  the  New  York  courts, 
September  24,  1765,  in  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  vii,  762. 

649  Letter  of  Golden  to  the  Board,  November  7,  1764.    Ibid.,  676-677. 


28o        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

criminal  cases,  though  it  was  apparently  intended  to  be  con 
fined  to  civil  causes;  and  we  conceive  that  the  confining  such 
appeals  to  cases  of  error  only,  was  upon  the  principles  of  law 
a  rule  so  absolute  of  itself  and  so  well  established  by  the 
usage  and  constitution  of  this  kingdom,  that  it  was  thought 
unnecessary  to  point  it  out  by  express  words  in  the  instruc 
tions.650 

The  instructions  to  Governor  Moore  were  made  so 
clear  that  they  could  not  be  misunderstood.  He  was 
to  allow  appeals  to  himself  in  council  from  any  of  the 
common  law  courts,  in  cases  of  error  only,  and  when 
the  sum  in  dispute  exceeded  three  hundred  pounds. 
An  appeal  could  then  be  taken  to  the  king  in  council,  if 
the  sum  in  dispute  exceeded  five  hundred  pounds,  and 
the  appeal  were  taken  within  fourteen  days  after  sen 
tence  had  been  pronounced.  In  both  cases  the  ap 
pellant  was  required  to  give  security  for  the  payment 
of  all  charges  that  might  be  assessed  against  him,  in 
case  the  decision  of  the  lower  court  should  be  af 
firmed. 

There  was  but  one  exception  to  the  above  regula 
tions.  If  the  matter  in  question  related 

To  the  taking  or  demanding  any  duty  payable  to  us  or  to 
any  fee  of  office  or  annual  rent  or  other  such  matter  or  thing 
where  the  rights  in  future  may  be  bound, 

an  appeal  was  to  be  allowed,  even  though  the  sum 
in  controversy  should  be  less  than  five  hundred 
pounds.651 

The  Committee  of  the  Privy  Council,  when  sitting 
as  a  court,  thus  confined  itself  wholly  to  the  question 
of  legality  of  procedure  in  colonial  courts.  It  was 

650  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  vii,  763. 

651  Instructions  to  Sir  Henry  Moore,  in  New  York  Colonial  Documents, 
vol.  vii,  764-765. 


TREATMENT  OF  COLONIAL  LEGISLATION   281 

a  court.  The  Board  of  Trade  was  an  administrative 
body  with  certain  extrajudicial  functions.  Each  re 
spected  the  special  field  of  the  other's  activity,  and 
kept  within  its  own  limits. 

Complaints 

The  question  of  complaints  was  very  closely  con 
nected  with  that  of  appeals,  as  they  were  begun  in  the 
same  way  by  a  petition  to  the  king  in  council.  After 
being  read  there,  they  were  referred  to  the  Commit 
tee  of  Council  and  thence  to  the  Board  of  Trade.  As 
these  complaints  were  founded  upon  some  breach  of 
the  constitution  of  the  colonies,  the  operation  of  some 
unjust  law,  or  the  arbitrary  or  illegal  procedure  of 
some  official,  it  was  no  easy  task  for  any  body  of  men 
to  give  a  fair  opinion  upon  them.  In  some  cases  it 
was  even  difficult  to  distinguish  between  an  appeal 
and  a  complaint,  which  accounts  for  the  Board's  be 
ing  called  upon  for  an  opinion  in  some  cases  of  ap 
peals. 

Although  the  slowness  of  communications  made  it 
impossible  to  avoid  frequent  and  annoying  delays  be 
fore  an  opinion  could  be  given,  the  Board  tried  to 
furnish  justice  to  all  parties  concerned.  It  proceeded 
as  follows.  The  complaints  having  been  lodged  in 
its  office,  the  party  against  whom  they  were  made  was 
notified.  If  he  was  in  America,  copies  of  the  com 
plaints  were  either  sent  to  him  or  delivered  to  his 
agent.652  If  he  was  present  in  London,  as  was  Fletcher 
for  instance,  he  appeared  in  person  before  the  Board, 
examined  the  charges  and  the  proofs  against  him  and 

652  See  the  letter  of  Popple  to  Secretary  Burchett,  in  North  Carolina 
Colonial  Records,  vol.  iii,  349. 


282        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

was  furnished  copies  of  the  same.  All  charges  and 
complaints  had  to  be  supported  by  written  proofs, 
which  were  usually  authenticated  by  the  seal  of  the 
colony  from  which  they  came. 

Having  received  copies  of  the  charges  against  him 
and  the  proofs  in  support  of  the  same,  the  person 
against  whom  they  were  made  was  given  whatever 
time  he  needed  to  prepare  a  defense,653  and  was  fur 
nished  with  full  means  for  securing  proofs  from  the 
colonies  in  the  preparation  of  his  case.  Governors 
were  not  permitted  to  refuse  access  to  official  records, 
and  a  governor  might  even  be  ordered  to  have  dam 
aging  evidence  against  himself  authenticated  with  the 
seal  of  the  colony.65'  The  counter  case,  when  it  was 
prepared,  was  filed  with  the  Board  and  copies  fur 
nished  to  the  plaintiff,  and  the  latter  might  then  ask 
time  for  the  presentation  of  further  proofs  in  support 
of  his  case. 

After  the  charges,  counter  charges,  and  proofs  were 
filed,  the  case  was  given  a  formal  hearing  at  the 
Board.  Each  party  was  present  in  person  or  was 
represented  by  his  agent,  unless  he  chose  to  let  the 
case  go  by  default,  and  frequently  each  party  was  also 
assisted  by  legal  counsel.  The  procedure,  in  fact, 
was  almost  identical  with  that  followed  when  a  colo 
nial  law  was  being  considered.  In  the  course  of  time 
the  Board  submitted  its  findings  in  the  case  to  the 
Privy  Council  with  recommendations. 

It  was  possible  for  either  party  to  oppose  the  report 
before  the  Privy  Council  or  its  committee;  but  the 
hearing  before  that  body  was  almost  like  an  appeal 

653  See  the  complaints  against  Governor  Fletcher  and  the  prosecution  of 
them,  in  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iv,  178,  443,  479. 

654  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  vol.  ii,  162. 


TREATMENT  OF  COLONIAL  LEGISLATION   283 

to  a  superior  court  on  a  writ  of  error.  No  additional 
proofs  could  be  presented,  but  only  argument  by  at 
torneys  for  or  against  the  report  of  the  Board.  The 
committee  reported  its  findings  to  the  king  in  council, 
which  report  might  or  might  not  be  in  accordance 
with  the  report  of  the  Board,  but  usually  the  latter 
was  sustained.  The  final  decision  was  announced  by 
an  Order  in  Council,  which,  after  the  committee  had 
reported,  was  a  mere  legal  formality. 

The  methods  of  the  Board  of  Trade  in  dealing  with 
complaints  were  too  slow  and  complicated  and  al 
lowed  of  too  many  delays.  The  whole  procedure 
illustrates  the  Englishman's  sense  of  judicial  fairness; 
no  man  should  be  condemned  without  a  hearing,  but 
the  very  fairness  to  one  party  often  meant  absolute 
injustice  to  the  opposing  party,  especially  was  this 
true  in  the  prosecution  of  complaints  against  a  gov 
ernor.  It  seldom  happened 

That  such  oppressions  can  be  fully  proved  without  deposi 
tions  of  witnesses,  and  as  there  is  no  law  by  which  witnesses 
can  be  compelled  to  depose  in  such  extrajudicial  cases,  or  any 
power  in  the  plantations,  except  the  governors  themselves  to 
take  their  depositions  and  return  them  authentically  to 
Britain,  if  they  were  willing  to  be  examined,  for  this  reason 
it  often  happens  that  the  greatest  wrongs  done  there  cannot 
be  proved  in  Britain. 

And  where  the  persons  oppressed  can  prevail  with  wit 
nesses  to  come  over  from  the  plantations,  they  must  bear  the 
expense  of  it,  and  likewise  pay  them  for  their  trouble,  hazard, 
and  loss  of  time,  which  with  their  own  charges  in  the  pros 
ecution  may  amount  to  above  a  thousand  pounds.  That  is 
what  few  of  the  planters  can  bear,  and,  several  have  been 
ruined  by  it.655 

655  From  a  scheme  for  the  improvement  of  colonial  administration  sub 
mitted  to  the  Board  by  Secretary  Stanhope  in  1715.  See:  North  Carolina 
Colonial  Records,  vol.  ii,  162. 


VI.  BOUNDARIES,  TRADE,  DEFENSE,  AND 
INDIAN  AFFAIRS 

Besides  the  work  discussed  in  the  preceding  chap 
ters,  the  Board  of  Trade  had  important  duties  to  per 
form  in  dealing  with  questions  which  especially  con 
cerned  the  external  relations  of  the  colonies.  V  As  the 
representative  of  the  English  government  the  Board 
had  charge  of  boundary  disputes,  Indian  relations, 
and  defense;  it  also  assisted  in  the  administration  of 
the  laws  of  trade  and  supervised  the  schemes  for  fos 
tering  certain  industries  in  the  colonies. 

Boundary  disputes 

When  the  Board  of  Trade  was  organized,  the  ter 
ritorial  limits  of  the  various  British  colonies  were 
vague  and  indefinite.  Some  reached  far  into  the  in 
terior  of  the  continent,  regardless  of  the  claims  of 
colonies  established  by  other  nations;  others  over 
lapped  their  English  neighbors  on  either  side.  To 
add  to  the  confusion,  no  one  appeared  to  know  just 
where  any  described  line  ran,  and  residents  of  ad 
joining  colonies  were  not  agreed  upon  the  location 
of  rivers  and  ocean  inlets  named  in  the  descriptions 
of  their  boundaries.  Under  such  circumstances  it 
was  a  slow,  tedious  process  to  settle  the  various  dis 
putes  between  the  individual  colonies.  It  was  even  a 
harder  task  to  determine  the  boundaries  between  Eng- 


286        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

lish  and  foreign  colonies.  Both  of  these  tasks  fell 
to  the  lot  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  and  it  dealt  with 
them  as  best  it  could. 

The  Board  was  the  one  information  bureau  for  the 
commissioners  who  were  appointed  to  negotiate 
boundary  treaties  with  foreign  nations,  as  the  papers 
upon  which  the  various  English  claims  were  based 
^were  principally  deposited  in  its  office.  When  trea 
ties  were  to  be  drawn  up,  it  was  required  to  furnish 
to  the  envoys  full  descriptions  of  the  claims  of  the 
particular  colonies  affected,  instruct  them  what  de 
mands  to  make,  suggest  what  compromises  might  be 
accepted,  and  correspond  with  them  as  the  negotia 
tions  proceeded. j  Naturally  the  most  of  this  work 
came  at  the  close  of  the  wars  with  France  and  Spain, 
although  some  of  the  negotiations  occurred  during 
periods  of  peace. 

In  1700,  when  France  and  England  were  attempt 
ing  to  settle  their  disputed  boundaries  in  America, 
especially  those  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  the 
various  proposals  of  the  French  were  submitted  to 
the  Board  for  consideration,656  and  on  another  occa 
sion  the  envoys  met  with  the  Board  to  hear  the  claims 
of  the  company  presented  by  its  own  representa 
tives.661  When  a  treaty  with  France  was  under  con 
sideration  in  1709,  the  Board  was  called  upon  to  sup 
ply  Secretary  Boyle  with  a  full  history  and  descrip 
tion  of  the  claims  of  Hudson's  Bay,  Nova  Scotia, 
New  York  and  the  Five  Nations,  Island  of  St.  Chris 
topher,  New  Foundland,  Tobago,  St.  Lucia,  and 
Dominico.  Copies  of  the  most  important  documents 

656  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  13,  p.  19. 

657  June  12,  1700.     Board  of  Trade  Journal,  13,  pp.  70-73. 


BOUNDARIES,  TRADE,  INDIAN  AFFAIRS      287 

bearing  on  these  claims  were  prepared  at  the  same 
time.658  Similar  action  was  taken  in  1714  when  the 
peace  negotiations  were  on.659  And  in  1719,  when  the 
instructions  were  prepared  for  Martin  Bladen,  one 
of  the  envoys  to  Paris,  the  description  of  the  southern 
limits  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  claims  were 
defined  substantially  as  the  forty-ninth  parallel,  the 
present  boundary  of  the  United  States.860 

Boundary  disputes  between  the  several  colonies 
were  of  even  more  pressing  importance  than  were 
those  with  foreign  nations.  In  1700  none  of  the  colo 
nies  had  its  limits  so  well  defined  that  it  was  free 
from  such  controversies,  and  as  time  went  on  these 
questions  had  to  be  settled.  It  was  difficult  for  the 
interested  parties  to  arrive  at  a  satisfactory  agree 
ment  without  recourse  to  some  outside  party:  conse 
quently  the  Board  of  Trade  was  the  body  to  wftich, 
as  a  last  resort,  all  these  controversies  were  referred. 

Such  disputes  were  nearly  always  complicated  by 
the  question  of  private  interests,  as  the  titles  to  land 
along  the  contested  line  rested  upon  grants  from  one 
or  the  other  of  the  claimants  to  the  region.  When 
the  line  was  finally  determined,  property  owners  who 
had  deeds  from  one  colony  might  find  themselves  oc 
cupying  land  which  had  legally  been  granted  to  other 
parties.  The  crown  also  had  interests  to  be  consid 
ered  in  disputes  between  a  royal  and  a  proprietary 
province;  since  in  one  case  the  quit  rents  belonged  to 
the  crown,  and  in  the  other  to  the  proprietary.  Conse- 

658  C.O.  324,  9,  pp.  294-394. 

659  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  24,  p.  277. 

660  —  Ibid.,  29,  pp.  41,  135.     A  copy  of  the  chief  instruction  to  Martin 
Bladen  on  this  point  has  already  been  given  in  footnote  109. 


288        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

quently  any  change  in  the  boundary  line  meant  an 
increase  or  a  loss  of  royal  revenue. 

As  all  settlements  of  a  boundary  controversy  were, 
of  necessity,  ratified  by  laws  passed  by  the  colonial 
legislature,  any  such  settlement  could  be  invalidated 
by  the  action  of  the  Board  of  Trade.  If  private  in 
dividuals  were  injured  in  their  property  interests, 
they  had  just  grounds  for  a  complaint  to  the  king,  and 
such  a  complaint  would  involve  the  boundary  dispute 
and  its  settlement,  i-  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  inter 
ests  of  the  crown  were  at  stake,  it  had  to  be  made  a 
party  to  the  settlement  or  it  would  refuse  to  recognize 
its  validity.  Thus  in  either  case  the  question  would 
come  before  the  crown  for  ratification. 

The  part  which  the  Board  of  Trade  played  in  a 
boundary  controversy  is  illustrated  by  the  settlement 
of  the  dispute  between  New  York  and  Connecticut, 
which  dated  back  to  the  time  of  Charles  II.  In  1664 
a  commission  appointed  by  the  king  had  heard  both 
parties  and  agreed  upon  a  settlement,  which  was  con 
curred  in  by  the  representatives  of  both  New  York 
and  Connecticut.  It  was  afterwards  discovered  that 
the  distances  stated  in  the  report  were  not  accurate 
and  that  the  towns  of  Rye  and  Bedford,  which  were 
intended  to  be  included  in  New  York,  were  actually 
located  in  Connecticut.661  Finally,  in  November, 
1683,  Governor  Dongan  for  New  York  and  Governor 
Treat,  assisted  by  three  commissioners  for  the  colony 
of  Connecticut,  went  over  the  division  line  and  settled 
it  from  place  to  place.662  By  this  action  the  towns  of 
Rye  and  Bedford  were  again  included  in  New  York, 

661  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iv,  625. 

662  «jn  prosecution  of  this  last  agreement  an  exact  survey  was  made,  and 


BOUNDARIES,  TRADE,  INDIAN  AFFAIRS      289 


but  in  1697  ^ey  revolted  from  that  colony  to  avoid 
the  payment  of  taxes,  and  insisted  upon  being  an 
nexed  to  Connecticut.663  The  latter  colony  supported 
their  contentions  and  the  question  finally  came  before 
the  Board,  where  the  whole  matter  was  reviewed. 

The  agents  for  Connecticut  attacked  the  validity 
of  the  settlement  of  1683  on  two  grounds:  in  the  first 
place,  the  commission  had  exceeded  its  powers  by 
changing  the  boundary  when  it  was  only  authorized 
to  survey  a  line  previously  agreed  upon;  and  in  the 
second  place,  the  agreement  was  to  have  been  sub 
mitted  to  the  king  for  his  confirmation,  which  was 
never  done.  The  Board  decided  that  the  commission 
of  1683  was  fully  authorized  by  both  colonies,  espe 
cially  as  both  had  acquiesced  in  its  decision  for  four 
teen  years,  and  recommended  that  the  crown  at  once 
confirm  the  agreement  which  the  commission  had 
made,  which  was  done  by  an  Order  in  Council, 
March  28,  lyoo.664, 

In  this  action  the  Board  was  not  deciding  the  ques 
tion  of  boundary,  it  was  only  passing  upon  the  valid 
ity  of  a  settlement  already  mutually  agreed  upon  by 
the  two  contending  parties.  It  should  also  be  no 
ticed,  that  the  line  had  formerly  been  determined  by  a 
royal  commission  created  for  that  purpose,  which 
was  the  method  which  the  Board  always  insisted 
should  be  followed,  unless  the  two  parties  could  agree 
upon  a  line  without  recourse  to  a  commission.  Even 

the  bounds  or  mears  accordingly  fixed  and  distinguished  by  certain  land 
marks."  -  Representation  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  March  13,  1700,  in  New 
York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iv,  625. 

663  Letter  of  Governor  Fletcher  to  the  Board,  in   New  York   Colonial 
Documents,  vol.  iv,  276. 

664  Report  of  the  Board  of  Trade.     Ibid.,  626-627. 


290        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

in  that  case,  if  either  of  the  colonies  was  a  royal  prov 
ince,  the  agreement  would  have  to  be  confirmed  by 
the  crown  to  make  it  binding. 

The  regular  method  of  procedure  in  settling  a  dis 
pute  was  to  secure  the  appointment  of  a  royal  commis 
sion.  All  the  important  boundary  controversies,  such 
as  those  between  North  Carolina  and  Virginia,665 
North  and  South  Carolina,666  New  York  and  Massa 
chusetts,667  and  the  latter  province  and  New  Hamp 
shire  668  and  Rhode  Island,669  were  settled  in  this  way. 
These  commissioners  were  appointed  by  the  Board  of 
Trade  upon  the  authority  of  an  Order  in  Council, 
were  composed  of  men  selected  from  the  neighboring 
colonies,  and  were  usually  paid  by  the  two  parties  to 
the  controversy.  This  method  of  payment  required 
the  consent  of  both  parties,  but  it  seldom  happened 
that  a  colony  refused  to  bear  its  share  of  the  charges.670 
In  some  cases  the  Board  secured  authority  to  pay  the 
expenses  of  such  commissions  from  the  quit  rents  of 

665  The  commissions  for  settling  this  boundary  were  joint  tribunals,  ap 
pointed  partly  by  the  crown  and  partly  by  the  proprietaries.     See:  North 
Carolina  Colonial  Records,  vol.  i,  703,  716,  735,  750,  vol.  iii,  12,  17. 

666  _  IfoA^   vol.   iv>   28. 

667  Proposed  but  not  carried  into  execution.     See :  Pratt's  Boundaries  of 
New  York,  vol.  ii,  88-225. 

668  Commission  of  1737.     See:  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  vi, 
pp.  823,  953. 

669  The  commissioners  in  this  case  were  Cadwallader  Colden,  Abraham 
Vanhorn,  Phillip  Livingston,  Archibald  Kennedy,  and  James  De  Lancey  of 
New  York;  John  Hamilton,  John  Wells,  John  Reading,  Cornelius  Vanhorn, 
and  William  Provost  of  New  Jersey;  and  William  Skeene,  William  Shir- 
reft,  Henry  Cope,  Erasmus  James  Phillips,  and  Otho  Haymilton  of  Nova 
Scotia.     See:  Board  of  Trade  to  Governor  Clinton.     Ibid.,  167-168. 

670  In  regard  to  a  commission  for  settling  the  boundary  between  Massa 
chusetts  and  Rhode  Island,  the  Board  says  the  "charges  of  which  and  the 
execution  thereof  the  agents  for  the  Massachusetts  Bay  and  Rhode  Island 
have  agreed  are  reasonable  equally  to  be  bourne  by  both  provinces."  —  Let 
ter  to  Clinton,  August  i,  1740.     Ibid.,  167-168. 


BOUNDARIES,  TRADE,  INDIAN  AFFAIRS      291 

the  provinces  concerned,  as  was  done  in  settling  the 
southern  boundary  of  Virginia  in  1711  and  again  in 
1729- 

In  1748  New  Jersey  attempted  to  settle  the  line  be 
tween  herself  and  New  York,  which  had  been  in  dis 
pute  for  many  years,  by  the  authority  of  an  act  of  her 
own  legislature.  In  1719  Governor  Hunter,  acting 
under  color  of  a  New  York  law  which  had  been  con 
curred  in  by  New  Jersey,  issued  a  commission  to  sur 
vey  the  line.  Disputes  arose,  however,  and  the  com 
mission  never  completed  its  work,  consequently  the 
question  remained  unsettled  until  New  Jersey  passed 
the  act  mentioned  above.  Governor  Belcher  in 
structed  his  agent,  Mr.  Partridge,  to  secure  its  confir 
mation  as  soon  as  possible,672  and  that  gentleman  laid 
the  act  before  the  Board  the  same  day  he  received  it.678 
The  New  York  agent  opposed  the  confirmation  of  the 
act,  delays  ensued,  and  it  was  not  reported  upon  until 
1753,  when  the  Board  asked  that  it  be  disallowed.674 

The  reasons  for  recommending  this  action  are  illus 
trative  of  the  attitude  of  the  Board,  at  all  times,  on 
such  questions. 

671  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  vol.  Hi,  13,  17,  vol.  iv,  28. 

672  As  the  act  had  a  suspending  clause,  it  had  to  be  confirmed  before  it 
was  valid.     See:  Pratt,  Daniel  J.  Boundaries  of  New  York,  vol.  ii,  605, 
642-645. 

673  Letter  of  F.  J.  Paris  to  James  Alexander,  November  4,  1748,  in  New 
Jersey  Archives,  vol.  vii,  168. 

674  Representation  of  the  Board,  July  18,  1753,  in  CO.  5,  997,  pp.  386- 
406.     The  representation  was  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Privy  Council, 
which  sent  copies  of  it  to  the  solicitors  on  both  sides,  who  in  turn  petitioned 
for  it  and  against  it.     These  petitions  were  referred  to  the  committee,  but 
the  Register  fails  to  show  that  any  further  action  was  taken.     As  the  act, 
according  to  Pratt,  had  a  suspending  clause,  no  action  amounted  to  a  re 
fusal  to  confirm  it.     See:  Privy  Council  Register,   "George  II,"  vol.  xiv, 
442,  456,  499. 


292        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

The  Province  of  New  Jersey  in  its  distinct  and  separate 
capacity  can  neither  make  nor  establish  boundaries ;  it  can  as 
little  form  regulations  for  deciding  differences  between  itself 
and  other  parties  concerned  in  interest.  .  .  The  legal 
method  of  proceeding  we  conceive  must  be  derived  from  the 
immediate  authority  of  the  crown  itself,  and  be  signified  by 
a  commission  from  His  Majesty  under  the  great  seal. 

The  agents  for  New  Jersey  contended  that  the  case 
was  similar  to  that  of  the  New  York  and  Connecticut 
boundary  line,  and  that  all  that  was  necessary  was  a 
confirmation  by  the  crown.  To  this  the  Board  re 
plied: 

It  appears  to  us  that  Governor  Hunter  ought  not  to  have  is 
sued  his  commission  for  running  the  line  above  mentioned 
without  having  previously  received  the  royal  direction  and 
instruction  for  that  purpose;  and  that  a  commission  issued 
without  such  authority  can  be  considered;  with  respect  to 
the  interests  of  the  crown,  in  no  other  light  than  a  mere 
nullity.675 

The  New  Jersey  agents  urged  that  the  crown  had  con 
firmed  the  New  York  act  of  1717,  and  thus  had  be 
come  a  party  to  the  transaction ;  but  the  Board  looked 
upon  that  act  as  a  necessary  revenue  measure  which 
had  been  accepted  without  any  consideration  of  the 
involved  dispute.678 

In  December,  1754,  New  York  passed  a  law  by 

675  Representation  of  the  Board,  in  C.O.  5,  997,  pp.  386-406. 

676  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  viii,  part  i,  148-149.     The  act  in  question 
is  a  very  long  one,  entitled,  "An  Act  for  Paying  and  Discharging  Several 
Debts  due  from  this  Colony  to  the  Persons  therein  named  and  for  Raising 
and  Putting  into  the  hands  of  the  Treasurer  of  this  Colony  Several  quan 
tities  of  Plate  to  be  apply'd  to  the  Publick  and  necessary  uses  of  this  Colony 
and  to  make  Bills  of  Credit  to  the  value  of  forty-one  Thousand  five  hundred 
and  Seventeen  Ounces  and  a  half  of  Plate  for  that  purpose."     Only  two 
clauses  concerned  the  boundary,   and  these   could   easily  have  been   over 
looked  by  the  Board.     See:  New  York  Colonial  Laws,  vol.  i,  938-991;  Pratt, 
D.  J.  Boundaries  of  New  York,  vol.  ii,  605. 


BOUNDARIES,  TRADE,  INDIAN  AFFAIRS      293 

which  the  whole  question  in  dispute  was  to  be  left  to 
the  determination  of  the  crown,677  but  the  following 
June  the  Board  recommended  that  this  act  also  should 
be  disallowed  for  the  following  reasons: 

It  is  improper  as  the  method  of  determination  which  it  pro 
poses  is  unusual  and  contrary  to  the  constant  practice  in 
cases  of  like  nature :  questions  of  disputed  boundary,  whereby 
private  property  may  be  affected,  having  never  been  deter 
mined  by  the  crown  in  the  first  instance  but  always  by  a 
commission  from  His  Majesty  with  liberty  to  all  parties  which 
shall  think  themselves  aggrieved  by  the  judgment  of  the  Com 
missioners,  to  appeal  to  His  Majesty  from  their  decision.678 

In  order  to  bring  the  controversy  to  a  close,  the 
Board  proposed  that  the  governor  of  New  York 
should  be  instructed 

To  recommend  it  to  the  Assembly  of  that  province  to  make 
provision  for  defraying  one  half  the  expence  of  obtaining  and 
executing  such  commission,  as  aforesaid,  whenever  his  Majes 
ty  shall  be  graciously  pleased  to  issue  it,679 

which  was  approved  and  the  instructions  issued  in  ac 
cordance  therewith.  The  proprietaries  were  ready 
to  bear  their  half  of  the  expense  of  the  proposed  com 
mission  ;  but  on  account  of  its  heavy  military  expendi 
tures,  the  New  York  assembly  refused  to  bear  the 
added  charges  of  running  the  line.  In  1764,  how 
ever,  it  gave  its  consent,  the  commission  was  issued 
in  1767,  and  the  boundary  finally  settled.680 

The  work  of  the  Board  in  settling  the  line  between 
New  York  and  Massachusetts  offers  a  seeming  ex 
ception  to  its  policy  announced  in  the  above  case.  That 

677  New  York  Colonial  Laws,  vol.  iii,  1036-1038. 

678  Report  of  the  Board,  June  12,  1755,  in  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  viii, 
part  ii,  109. 

*™  —  Ibid.,  1 10. 

680  Pratt,  D.  J.  Boundaries  of  New  York,  vol.  ii,  734,  750801. 


294        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

boundary  had  long  been  in  dispute  and  the  two  colo 
nies  had  failed  in  all  their  attempts  to  arrive  at  an 
agreement.  Finally,  in  1756-1757,  the  question  carne 
before  the  Board  of  Trade.  After  a  careful  examina 
tion  of  the  records  in  its  office,  it  gave  its  opinion, 

That  a  line  to  be  drawn  northerly  from  a  point  on  the  south 
boundary-line  of  the  Massachusetts  Bay,  twenty  miles  distant 
due  east  from  Hudson's  River,  to  another  point  twenty  miles 
distant  due  east  from  the  said  river,  on  that  line  which  di 
vides  the  Province  of  New  Hampshire  and  the  Massachusetts 
Bay,  would  be  a  just  and  equitable  line  of  division  between 
Your  Majesty's  provinces  of  New  York  and  the  Massachu 
setts  Bay.681 

The  agents  of  the  two  colonies  were  given  copies  of 
this  decision  and  both  accepted  it.  The  Board  then 
reported  its  decision  to  the  king  and  asked  that  the 
proposed  boundary  should  be  established  by  an  Order 
in  Council.682 

This  looks  on  its  face  like  an  actual  settlement  of  a 
boundary  by  the  Board,  but  that  was  not  the  case,  as 
all  that  the  Board  did  was  to  determine  the  meaning 
of  certain  grants.  After  its  decision  the  boundary 
was  still  unsettled;  and  a  commission  had  to  be  ap 
pointed  to  survey  and  mark  out  the  line  according  to 
the  determination  of  the  Board.  New  York  pro 
vided  for  the  expense  of  such  a  commission  in  1764; 
but  as  the  two  colonies  could  not  agree  upon  the  way 
the  line  should  be  surveyed,  the  question  remained 
unsettled  until  after  the  Revolution,  and  the  final  de- 

681  Report  of  the  Board,   May  25,   1757,  in  New  York  Colonial  Docu 
ments,  vol.  vii,  224. 

682  They  were  given  two  months  to  consider  the  decision  of  the  Board 
before  the  latter  embodied  it  in  a  representation  to  the  king.     See:  Pratt, 
D.  J.  Boundaries  of  New  York,  vol.  ii,  147-150. 


BOUNDARIES,  TRADE,  INDIAN  AFFAIRS      295 

termination  of  it  was  made  in  1787  under  the  author 
ity  of  Congress.683 

Not  only  a  colony  but  an  Indian  tribe  could 
have  recourse  to  the  Board  of  Trade  for  the  settle 
ment  of  disputed  lands.  The  best  illustration  is  the 
controversy  between  Connecticut  and  the  Mohegan 
Indians,  to  settle  which  a  commission  had  been  ap 
pointed  in  1704.  It  heard  all  parties  and  made  a  de 
cision  the  next  year;  but  Connecticut  considered  its 
findings  unfair,  and  appealed  to  the  king  in  coun 
cil.684  After  hearing  the  agents  for  Connecticut,  the 
Board  proposed  that  a  commission  should  be  ap 
pointed  to  review  the  work  of  the  former  commission. 
An  order  was  issued  for  its  appointment,  but  for  some 
reason  it  was  never  carried  into  effect.  At  the  insti 
gation  of  Mason,  the  order  was  revived  in  1737  and 
a  commission  appointed  to  review  the  decision  of 
1705.  There  was  a  slight  irregularity  in  its  report, 
and  on  the  petition  of  Mason,  acting  in  behalf  of  the 
Indians,  another  commission  of  review  was  issued  in 
I74o.'8< 

It  is  thus  seen  that  the  Board  of  Trade  acted  as  a 
high  court  of  arbitration  for  disputes  as  to  territory 
or  jurisdiction.  It  did  not  settle  disputes  on  its  own 
authority,  but  it  provided  a  way  by  which  such  con 
troversies  could  be  determined  by  special  commis 
sions.  These  were  in  reality  special  courts  of  arbi 
tration,  which  had  power  to  settle  the  questions  at 
issue,  but  from  which  an  appeal  would  lie  to  the 

ess  pratt,  D.  J.  Boundaries  of  New  York,  vol.  ii,  149-218. 

684  Connecticut    Historical    Society    Collections,   vol.    v,    20-21 ;    Palfrey, 
John  G.  History  of  New  England,  vol.  iv,  364-365. 

685  Connecticut  Historical  Society  Collections,  vol.  v,  21,  263-265,  274-280. 


296        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

Board.686  If  either  party  were  dissatisfied  with  the 
decision  of  such  a  commission,  it  could  prosecute  a 
complaint  in  the  usual  manner;  and  if  its  work  should 
appear  irregular,  another  commission  was  issued  to 
rehear  the  case.  In  all  this  there  was  an  evident  at 
tempt  to  do  justice  to  all  parties  concerned.  In  some 
cases  it  was  a  slow  and  extremely  tedious  method  of 
procedure,  but  it  never  deprived  a  colony  of  its  terri 
tory  without  first  securing  its  consent  to  the  transac 
tion,  until  after  the  expulsion  of  the  French  when  the 
question  of  western  limits  was  raised.  Even  then  it 
is  doubtful  whether  the  proclamation  of  1763  and  the 
policy  which  followed  it  can  be  interpreted  as  deter 
mining  boundaries  in  any  final  and  legal  sense.  The 
clause  in  the  Constitution  regarding  changes  in  state 
boundaries  is  but  a  recognition  of  the  constant  prac 
tice  of  the  Board  of  Trade  in  settling  disputes  of  this 
character. 

Trade  Relations 

The  Board  of  Trade  was  only  indirectly  concerned 
with  the  enforcement  of  the  laws  of  trade  and  navi 
gation,  as  the  real  work  of  executing  those  laws  be 
longed  to  the  officers  of  the  customs  and  the  admiral 
ty- 

Considerable  information  regarding  illegal  trade 
found  its  way  to  the  Board  of  Trade  from  one  source 
or  another,687  but  the  Board  itself  was  practically 
powerless  in  such  matters.  It  could  pass  the  infor- 

cse  jn  form  it  was  an  appeal  to  the  king,  but  as  all  such  complaints  and 
appeals  were  heard  by  the  Board  of  Trade,  it  was  in  reality  an  appeal  to 
that  body. 

687  Note  the  action  of  the  Board  on  April  17,  1707,  in  suspending  the 
prosecution  of  Vetch  and  others  for  trading  with  the  enemy,  in  Board  of 


BOUNDARIES,  TRADE,  INDIAN  AFFAIRS      297 

mation  on  to  the  colonial  governors  and  instruct  them 
to  enforce  the  law,  and  could  also  transmit  the  intelli 
gence  to  the  customs  and  the  admiralty;  but  it  could 
not  directly  prevent  violation  of  the  trade  laws  by 
means  of  revenue  officers  and  patrol  boats.  In  1710 
the  Board  received  testimony  of  a  considerable  illegal 
trade  between  Carolina,  Curagoa,  and  St.  Thomas. 
It  wrote  a  very  sharp  letter  to  the  proprietors  -  it  was 
the  fashion  just  then  to  threaten  them  on  every  plaus 
ible  occasion  -  insisting  that  steps  be  taken  to  break 
up  the  practice.688  At  the  same  time  it  wrote  a  much 
more  sensible  letter  to  the  commissioners  of  customs, 
transmitting  the  evidence  it  had  received,  and  advised 
that  two  revenue  cutters  on  that  station  would  effec 
tually  check  the  smuggling  operations.681 

Trade  Journal,  19,  p.  125.  The  next  year  Mr.  Lloyd,  a  New  England  mer 
chant,  gave  information  of  a  contraband  trade  from  Carolina  to  Portugal  by 
way  of  Rhode  Island.  In  this  case  ships  loaded  with  rice  in  Carolina,  gave 
bonds  to  discharge  the  cargo  in  an  English  port,  cleared  for  Rhode  Island, 
unloaded  and  discharged  their  bonds,  then  reloaded  and  sailed  for  Portugal. 
See:  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  20,  233-234. 

688  Copies  of  the  testimony  were  sent  to  the  proprietors,  not  only  of  the 
trade  to  Curagoa,  but  also  of  an  illegal  trade  to  Martinique  by  means  of  flags 
of  truce.     (Flags  of  truce  were  ships  carrying  prisoners  to  exchange  with 
the  enemy.     The  masters  of  such  vessels  also  carried  considerable  cargoes 
for  trading  purposes  on  such  trips,  and  in  some  cases  the  presence  of  the 
prisoners  was  only  a  cloak  to  cover  prohibited  voyages  and  give  the  ap 
pearance   of   legality.)     The    proprietors   were   ordered   to   investigate   the 
facts  and  to  prosecute  offenders,  if  the  evidence  warranted  it,  and  to  give 
orders  not  to  permit  any  trading  by  flags  of  truce  which  might  touch  at 
Carolina  ports.     See:  C.O.  5,  1292,  pp.  204-205. 

689  "Their  Lordships  being  of  opinion  that  the  said  illegal  trade  may  in  a 
great  measure  be  prevented  by  two  brigantines  of  ten  or  twelve  guns  each, 
to  cruise  off  of  these  islands,  upon  proper  stations,  with  power  to  examine 
and  seize  such  vessels  as  shall  be  found  trading  contrary  to  law;  they  have 
commanded  me  to  desire  you  will  lay  the  matter  before  the  honorable  the 
commissioners  of  His  Majesty's  customs,  and  to  let  me  know  whether  they 
have   any  objection  to  the  sending  of   such  brigantines,  or  whether  they 
have  any  other  remedy  to  propose  that  may  more  effectually  prevent  such 


298        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

Proof  of  illegal  trade  usually  reached  the  Board 
some  time  after  the  violations  had  occurred.  Thus  in 
1750  it  heard  a  very  considerable  amount  of  testi 
mony  which  proved  that  there  had  been  systematic 
violations  of  the  Molasses  Act  and  other  trade  laws 
for  years,690  and  that  colonial  ships  had  traded  with 
both  French  and  Spanish  colonies  during  the  wars.691 
The  data  from  the  customs  as  to  the  amount  of  duties 
which  the  Molasses  Act  had  yielded  told  the  same 
story.692 

During  the  wars  trade  with  the  enemy  was  es 
pecially  profitable,  hence  the  temptation  to  violate 
the  trade  and  navigation  laws  was  vastly  increased. 
These  violations  were  especially  flagrant  during  the 
French  and  Indian  War,  yet  the  Board  says  the  first 
information  it  had  received  of  illegal  trade  by  way  of 

Illegal  Trade." —  Popple  to  Burchett,  February  3,  1710,  in  Board  of  Trade 
Commercial  Series  II,  645,  p.  50. 

690  Even  as  early  as  1722  information  reached  the  Board  of  fraud  in  con 
nection  with  the  trade  with  the  sugar  islands.     See  the  letter  of  Captain 
Brand,   describing  the  methods  of  changing  rum   and  molasses  from  the 
French  casks  to  those  made  by  coopers  carried  by  the  vessels,  in  C.O.  323,  8, 
L.  35.     The  testimony  of  Admiral  Knowles,  Captain  Tyrrell,  and  Mr.  Tom- 
lison  shows  that  the  frauds  had  extended  over  a  long  term  of  years.     Much 
of  Admiral  Knowles'  testimony  dealt  with  conditions  as  far  back  as  1737. 
See:  Board  of  Trade  Journal.  58,  November  and  December,  1750. 

691  Admiral  Knowles  testified  that  there  were  forty-two  vessels  from  the 
northern  colonies   at  Hispaniola  with  fictitious  flags  of  truce  at  one  time 
during  the  war  of  1744-1748.     He  testified  that  he  had  sent  full  accounts 
of  the  violations  to  Newcastle,  but  received  no  orders  in  the  matter;  then, 
on  his  own  responsibility,  he  ordered  the  ships  in  his  squadron  to  capture  all 
vessels  which   appeared   to  be   violating  the   trade   laws.     See:  Board   of 
Trade  Journal,  58,  December  6,  1750. 

692  C.O.  5,  38,  Appendix  no.  4.     A  copy  of  this  has  already  been  given  in 
footnote  253.  C.O.  5,  872,  no.  191,  shows  largely  increasing  sugar  importa 
tions  from  New  England  and  Carolina.     No  doubt  much  of  this  was  from 
the  French  sugar  islands,   although  it   was  entered   as  from  the   English 
islands. 


BOUNDARIES,  TRADE,  INDIAN  AFFAIRS      299 

Monte  Christ!  had  been  in  letters  from  the  governor 
of  Jamaica  in  I759-693  As  for  the  gross  abuse  of  cartel 
ships,  or  flags  of  truce,  the  Board  asserted  in  1760 
that  it  had  received  no  information  of  their  use  "dur 
ing  the  present  war,"  although  it  did  not  doubt  but 
they  had  been  so  employed.  As  soon,  however,  as  the 
existence  of  illegal  trade  was  reported,  the  Board  pro 
posed  a  general  proclamation  and  particular  instruc 
tions  to  the  governors  of  all  the  provinces  as  the 
proper  means  of  breaking  it  up.694 

The  Board  busied  itself  more  with  questions  affect 
ing  the  growth  of  the  commercial  interests  of  the  em 
pire  than  it  did  with  the  enforcement  of  customs 
regulations.  It  spent  much  more  time  and  energy 
looking  after  passes  for  vessels  than  it  did  in  prevent 
ing  smuggling.695  During  the  War  of  the  Spanish 
Succession  commercial  relations  with  the  colonies 
were  seriously  interfered  with,  and  it  was  unsafe  for 
merchant  vessels  to  venture  on  a  voyage  without  a 
convoy.  The  Board  tried  to  arrange  the  convoys  so 

693  jn  1760  the  treasury  sent  the  Board  proof  of  illegal  trade,  both  by 
means  of  flags  of  truce,  and  by  way  of  Monte  Christi,  and  asked  it  to  supply 
any  information  it  had  received  of  similar  violations.     In  answer  to  this  the 
Board  wrote:    "We  have  not,  during  the  present  war,  received  information 
of  any  trade  carried  on  with  the  enemy  by  means  of  cartel  ships.     .     .     We 
think  the  only  remedy  is  not  to  allow  any  exchange  of  prisoners  in  America 
by  means  of  cartel  ships.     .     .     With  respect  to  the  trade  to  Monte  Christi, 
we  first  heard  of  it  through  the  lieutenant-governor  of  Jamaica,  in  a  letter 
dated  March  28,  1759."  — Letter  to  the  secretary  to  the  commissioners  of  the 
treasury,  March  7,  1760,  in  C.O.  324,  16,  pp.  175-181. 

694  Representations  on  the  testimony  of  illegal  trade  by  way  of  Monte 
Christi,    submitted   by   the   governor   of   Jamaica,   August   31,    1759.     See: 
Board  of  Trade  Jamaica,  67,  pp.  448-457;  also:  Beer,  Geo.  L.  British  Colo 
nial  Policy,  chaps,  vi  and  vii. 

695  The  determination  of  when  and  to  whom  passes  should  be  issued  was 
left  almost  wholly  to  the  Board.     See:  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  25,  pp.  343- 
347 ;  C.O.  324,  10,  p.  91. 


300        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

as  to  secure  the  best  commercial  relations,  both  for 
Virginia  and  Maryland  and  for  the  English  mer 
chants.  The  ministers  were  planning  to  have  the  con 
voy  sail  for  Virginia  in  June,  but  that  was  earlier 
than  many  of  the  ships  could  be  ready  for  a  voyage 
of  that  kind.  They  were  also  planning  for  its  early 
return  from  Virginia,  which  was  objected  to  by  the 
merchants;  for  if  the  ships  were  not  ready  to  return 
with  the  convoy,  they  would  be  compelled  to  remain 
until  the  next  year,  which  would  involve  heavy  losses 
to  ships  and  crews.  The  time  for  the  convoy  to  re 
turn  was  also  placed  at  a  bad  season,  for  the  new  crop 
of  tobacco  would  not  be  ready  to  ship ;  and  as  there 
would  be  no  other  opportunity  for  a  year,  the  planters 
would  practically  lose  one  crop,  and  the  nation  the 
revenue  on  it. 

The  Board  proposed  either  two  convoys  or  one;  if 
only  one  could  be  sent,  it  should  sail  for  Virginia  in 
September,  arrive  there  about  December,  and  return 
the  next  May.  In  that  way  each  crop  of  tobacco 
could  be  brought  away  at  the  proper  season,  and  Brit 
ish  goods  would  arrive  in  the  colonies  at  the  time  they 
were  most  needed.696 

The  chief  work  of  the  Board  in  promoting  the  in 
terests  of  British  commerce  was  to  furnish  informa 
tion  concerning  the  trade  situation  and  to  recommend 
ways  of  improving  it.  Each  of  the  governors  was 
expected  to  furnish  annual  reports  of  the  population, 
the  manufactures,  the  trade,  and  the  finances  of  his 
province.697  From  these  returns  the  Board  compiled 

696  Representation  of  the  Board,  April  26,  1706.     C.O.  5,  1362,  pp.  44- 
51.     See  also  the  letter  to  Secretary  Hedges,  February  i,  of  the  same  year. 

697  See  the  circular  letters  sent  to  the  governors,  in  New  York  Colonial 


BOUNDARIES,  TRADE,  INDIAN  AFFAIRS       301 

reports  on  the  conditions  of  the  provinces,  somewhat 
similar  to  those  which  are  published  in  the  "blue 
books"  at  the  present  time.  The  well  known  report 
of  1721  is  a  good  illustration  of  what  these  reports 
contained.698  In  addition  to  such  reports,  the  Board 
had  to  be  ready  to  furnish  Parliament  with  informa 
tion  on  a  variety  of  subjects  when  called  upon.  The 
information  it  secured  was  much  like  that  supplied 
by  our  own  consular  service,  and  the  merchants  of 
England  looked  upon  the  Board  in  much  the  same 
light  that  our  manufacturers  do  the  United  States 
consular  officers.  Any  measures  or  conditions  which 
in  any  way  afTected  their  trade  with  the  colonies  were 
promptly  reported,  or  rather  complained  of,  to  the 
Board.699 

The  Board  of  Trade  was  thoroughly  imbued  with 
the  mercantilist  doctrines  of  the  time,  but  its  constant 
correspondence  with  those  who  were  familiar  with 
conditions  in  the  colonies  made  it  favor  a  generally 
liberal  policy.  Its  conception  was  that  the  colonies 
should  be  both  a  source  of  supply  for  raw  materials 
and  such  products  as  could  be  made  most  advan 
tageously  there,  and  that  they  should  also  furnish  a 
growing  market  for  England's  manufactured  goods. 
In  this  way  colonies  and  mother  country  could  be 
mutually  helpful  to  each  other. 

The  value  of  the  colonies  as  a  market  was  very 

Documents-,  New  Jersey  Archives;  Sharpe's  Correspondence ;  Pennsylvania 
Archives ;  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records. 

eos  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  v,  591-630. 

699  See  extracts  from  Board  of  Trade  Journal  in  North  Carolina  Colonial 
Records,  and  in  Pennsylvania  Statutes  at  Large,  Appendices.  See  also  the 
extensive  reports  of  various  officers  respecting  trade  conditions  in  different 
places  in  Board  of  Trade  Commercial  Series  I. 


302        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

thoroughly  impressed  upon  the  Board  by  the  English 
merchants  and  manufacturers,  as  well  as  by  the  royal 
governors.  The  two  principal  items  of  British  export 
in  the  first  three  decades  of  the  Board's  activity  were 
woolen  and  linen  goods.  These  made  up  consider 
ably  more  than  one  half  of  all  the  exports  to  the  colo 
nies,  and  in  1721  wool  alone  constituted  one  half  of 
the  annual  exports  of  goods  of  British  manufacture,700 
consequently  the  wool  trade  was  very  dear  to  the  fi 
nancial  heart  of  every  Britisher.  During  the  earlier 
years  the  Board  nursed  this  market  as  carefully  as  it 
could,  and  constantly  demanded  information  regard- 

700  September  8,  1721,  the  Board  [C.O.  324,  10,  p.  385]  reported  the  ex 
ports  to  the  colonies  as  amounting  to  the  following  annually: 
In  British  Manufactures  &  Products 

Woolen  Manufactures       .             .             .  £147,438  us.  7d. 

Silk  wrought  and  thrown             .             .  18,468           7  i 

Linens   and   Sail   Cloth     .            .            .  11,464          9  o 

Cordage      .....  11,284           5  9 

Gunpowder             ....  2,392  15  5 

Leather  wrought  and  Saddles     .             .  15,161  12  6 

Brass  and   Copper  wrought         .             .  2,265           6  7 

Iron    wrought    and    Nails             .             .  35,631  13  6 

Lead  and  Shot      ....  2,850          9  3 

Pewter         .                         ...  3,687           6           n 

In  many  other  Goods        .             .             .  43,94!           5  6 


£294,586  35.  id. 

In  Foreign  Goods 

Linens         .....£  86,413 

Calicoes       .....  10,102  43. 

Prohibited  East  Indian   Goods    .             .  10,523  12             gd. 

Wrought    Silks      ....  1,189  "              1 

Iron  and  Hemp      ....  6,152  5           n 

Other  Foreign  Goods       .             .             .  21,760  19             9 


£136,141          133.  6d. 

294,586  3  i 

£430,727         i6s.  7d. 


BOUNDARIES,  TRADE,  INDIAN  AFFAIRS      303 

ing  conditions  which  might  in  any  way  jeopardize 
this  much  prized  export  trade.  The  act  of  1699, 
which  was  intended  to  prevent  the  development  of  a 
colonial  wool  manufacture,  should  be  looked  upon  as 
an  effort  to  preserve  the  American  wool  market.701 

The  colonists  were  not  averse  to  using  English 
woolen  goods  when  they  could  get  them.  As  Govern 
or  Dudley  wrote  to  the  Board,  they  were  proud 
enough  to  wear  clothing  made  of  the  very  best  goods 
England  could  produce,  and  were  determined  to  do 
so  if  saving,  chopping,  and  ship-building  could  pay 
for  it.702  But  clothing  they  had  to  have,  and  they 
could  only  buy  when  goods  were  to  be  had  at  reason 
able  prices  and  in  return  for  the  products  they  had  to 
sell.  When  these  failed,  as  they  did  during  Queen 
Anne's  War,  the  colonists  generally  were  forced  to 
resort  to  such  goods  as  they  could  make.  A  consider 
able  clandestine  trade  within  the  colonies  soon  de 
veloped,  and  Yankee  inventiveness  was  directed  to 
ward  devising  means  of  evading  the  act  of  1699. 
Perhaps  the  most  ingenious  method  of  keeping  with 
in  the  law  regarding  transportation  was  the  Rhode 
Island  scheme  of  driving  the  sheep  to  the  place 
where  the  wool  was  wanted,  shearing  them  there,  and 
then  driving  them  back  to  the  owner's  pasture.703 

The  reports  which  reached  the  Board  indicated 
there  was  every  reason  to  fear  that  the  colonial  mar- 

701  This  act  made  it  illegal  to  load  any  wool  or  wool  products  upon  any 
ship,   wagon,  horse,  or  other  means  of  transportation   for  the  purpose  of 
carrying  it  to  any  other  point.     Instructions  to  the  governors  strictly  enjoined 
them  to  enforce  this  law.     See:  trade  instructions  to  Governor  Nicholson  of 
Virginia,  October  16,  1702,  in  C.O.  5,  1360,  p.  308. 

702  Dudley  to  the  Board,  March  i,  1709,  in  C.O.  5,  913,  pp.  95-96. 

703  Letter  of  Larkin  to  the  Board,  December  5,  1701,  C.O.  5,  726,  p.  117. 


304        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

ket  for  wool  was  in  permanent  danger.  From  Massa 
chusetts  came  news  that  sheep  raising  had  spread 
from  the  islands  to  the  mainland,  and  that  soon  there 
would  be  a  thousand  sheep  where  there  were  not  a 
hundred  before; 704  that  wool  cards  and  combs  were 
being  imported  in  great  quantities; 705  that  the  wool 
trade  was  greatly  abated  due  to  the  excessive  cost  of 
English  goods; 706  and  that  unless  a  lumber  and  ship 
building  trade  could  be  developed,  the  use  of  Eng 
lish  goods  would  decrease  each  year.707  From  Mary 
land  came  letters  stating  that  "pinching  want"  had 


This  letter  was  written  from  Maryland  and  is  included  in  the  correspon 
dence  from  that  province.  He  also  adds  that  the  people  of  Connecticut  and 
Rhode  Island  made  as  good  "Druggets"  for  four  shillings  a  yard  as  he  ever 
saw  in  England  in  his  life. 

704  Letter  of  Jahleel   Brenton  to  the  Board,   March   30,    1703,    C.O.    5, 
863,  N.  33.     He  also  adds  that  most  of  the  lawyers  interpreted  the  act  of 
1699  as  not  intended  to  check  transportation  of  wool  from  one  part  of  the 
colony  to  another.     The  residents  of  the  islands  had  formerly  bought  their 
clothing  from  England,  but  since  the  scarcity  they  had  commenced  to  work 
their  wool  up  into  clothing  for  the  market. 

705  Letter  of  Bridger  to  the  Board,  March  5,  1706,  C.O.  5,  912,  p.  127. 
He  states  that  since  the  previous  December  3,  one  hundred  fifty-five  dozen 
wool  cards  had  been  imported  into  New  England  besides  great  quantities  of 
wool   combs,    and  the    importation   of   wool   had    greatly   decreased.     The 
Board  at  once  wrote  to  the  attorney-general  to  inquire  if  there  was  any  law 
to  prevent  the  trade  in  cards  and  combs,  and  was  informed  that  the  trade 
was  legal.     See:  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  18,  pp.  262,  356;  C.O.  5,  912,  p. 
178. 

TOG  "j  must  add  that  the  woolen  trade  from  England  also  is  to  a  great 
measure  abated,  the  people  here  clothing  themselves  with  their  own 
Wool.  .  .  Nothing  is  here  sold  at  less  than  one  hundred  and  fifty  pounds 
per  cent  advance,  most  goods  more,  so  that  country  men  cannot  purchase 
them."  —  Governor  Dudley  to  the  Board,  March  i,  1709,  C.O.  5,  913, 
pp.  95-96. 

707  "The  woolen  manufacture  for  the  supply  of  the  inhabitants  here  will 
prevail  every  year,  unless  the  people  are  put  to  building  ships  for  the  royal 
navy,  or  that  we  get  into  a  further  masting  and  providing  of  spars  and 
boards,  such  as  are  not  either  for  length  or  breadth  to  be  had  in  the  Bal- 
tick."  -  Ibid. 


BOUNDARIES,  TRADE,  INDIAN  AFFAIRS      305 

forced  the  inhabitants  to  resort  to  spinning  and  weav 
ing  their  own  clothes  from  such  materials  as  they 
could  get,  but  that  supplies  from  England  would 
cause  most  of  them  to  abandon  the  new  industry.708 
The  governor  of  Virginia  wrote  that  similar  condi 
tions  existed  in  that  colony,  and  that  in  one  of  the  best 
counties  for  the  production  of  tobacco  more  than 
forty  thousand  yards  of  cloth  had  been  made  in  one 
year.709  Purely  repressive  legislation  would  hardly 
meet  the  situation.  Convoys  for  the  fleet  which  sup 
plied  Virginia  and  Maryland  were  secured,  and  with 
the  fresh  supply  of  English  goods  the  domestic  cloth 
manufacture  declined  in  those  colonies.710  New  Eng 
land,  however,  could  only  be  diverted  from  its  wool 
manufacture  by  directing  the  energies  of  the  inhabi- 

708  "Pinching  want  has  put  some  few  on  making  of  a  little  linnen  and 
woollen,  but  not  sufficient  to  supply  their  own  family's  and  that  too  would 
be  quickly  laid  aside  were  they  supplyed  from  Great  Britain  at  any  reason 
able  price,  but  few  goods  of  late  years  have  been  sold  under  three  hundred 
per  cent."  —  Governor  Seymour  to  the  Board,  1708,  in  C.O.  5,  727,  p.  87. 

In  April,  1713,  the  president  and  council  of  Maryland  complained  of  the 
hard  times  the  province  had  been  having:  "So  that  most  of  us  labour 
under  great  difficulty's,  and  had  not  many  people  applyed  themselves  to 
spinning  the  little  wool  their  small  flocks  of  sheep  afford,  and  likewise  some 
small  quantity  of  flax,  they  would  have  suffered  very  much  for  want  of 
necessary  clothing,  which  too  many,  not  so  careful  and  industrious  have  too 
fully  experienced."  _  C.O.  5,  727,  pp.  334-335. 

709  Letter  of  Governor  Spotswood  to  the  Board,   March  20,   1711.     He 
adds  that  no  doubt  the  quantity  of  cloth  was  greater  in  the  poor  counties, 
that  it  was  necessity  and  not  inclination  which  caused  them  to  resort  to 
the  manufacture,  but  that  increased  skill  would  make  it  necessary  to  divert 
them  into  other  lines  of  effort.     See:  C.O.  5,  1363,  pp.  318-319. 

710  "This  province  is  highly  obliged  to  your  Lordship's  just  consideration 
of  their  great  necessity  in  that  you  have  been  pleased  to  recommend  to  the 
merchants   to   supply   it   with   English   manufactures,    which   they   have   by 
this  fleet  in  some  measure  complied  with,  so  that  the  little  manufacturing  of 
linnen  and  woollen  will  fall  of  themselves."  —  Letter  of  Governor  Seymour 
to  the  Board,  1708,  C.O.  5,  727,  p.  92. 

See  also  the  admission  of  the  Virginia  merchants  that  conditions  in  Vir- 


3o6        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

tants  into  channels  as  remunerative  to  them  and  more 
valuable  to  the  empire. 

Conditions  favored  the  production  of  naval  stores 
as  the  most  convenient  way  of  accomplishing  this  re 
sult.  In  spite  of  the  covert,  and  at  times  open,  hos 
tility  of  the  naval  officials,711  the  Board  secured 
bounties  for  American-made  tar,  pitch,  resin,  and 
turpentine  more  than  sufficient  to  counterbalance  the 
excess  in  freight  rates  from  the  colonies  over  those 
from  Sweden.712  In  addition,  the  Board  had  Mr. 
Bridger  sent  over  as  surveyor  of  the  woods,  and  di- 

ginia  were  largely  the  result  of  the  failure  of  the  regular  convoy  in  1707, 
in  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  20,  pp.  329-330. 

It  is  not  improbable  that  there  was  more  or  less  unfairness  and  fraud 
in  connection  with  the  convoys.  In  explaining  the  causes  for  excessive 
freight  rates  from  America,  the  Board  stated  that  the  officer  in  charge  of 
the  convoy  would  announce  the  precise  day  upon  which  he  intended  to  sail ; 
but  that  certain  masters  of  vessels  would  induce  him  to  postpone  his  de 
parture  without  public  notice,  then  they  would  demand  excessive  freight 
rates,  which  the  planters  would  refuse  to  pay  until  about  the  time  for  the 
fleet  to  leave,  when  they  would  pay  the  rates  demanded,  rather  than  miss  a 
shipment  to  England.  After  which  the  convoy  would  delay  for  the  masters 
to  complete  their  cargoes.  See:  Representation  on  Trade,  February  14,  1710, 
in  Board  of  Trade  Commercial  Series  II,  645,  p.  67. 

1  During  the  first  few  years  of  the  bounty  there  were  many  complaints 
from  merchants  of  hostile  action  on  the  part  of  the  navy,  such  as  severe 
grading  and  prejudice  in  favor  of  Swedish  tar.  In  March,  1708,  Bridger 
complained  that  the  navy  did  not  pay  the  premiums  according  to  the  act 
of  Parliament.  The  same  year  merchants  complained  that  the  premiums 
had  been  paid  in  noninterest-bearing  bills,  by  which  they  would  lose  two 
thirds  of  the  premiums.  January  5,  1711,  the  Board  wrote  a  letter  to  the 
admiralty  asking  the  opinion  of  the  officials  in  that  office  as  to  the  proper 
premiums  for  spars,  boards,  and  other  naval  stores.  Burchett  replied  for 
the  admiralty,  January  16,  that  no  advice  could  be  given  as  to  the  amount 
of  the  premiums  which  should  be  paid,  that  the  navy  officials  had  no  ob 
jections  to  such  importations,  but  thought  the  bounties  should  be  paid  by 
some  other  department.  See:  Letter  to  the  Board,  C.O.  5,  912,  p.  431; 
Board  of  Trade  Journal,  20,  p.  230;  C.O.  5,  913,  pp.  308-309,  317. 

712  The  premiums  paid  under  the  act  of  1706,  which  was  continued  for 
twenty  years,  were  four  pounds  per  ton  on  tar  and  pitch,  three  on  resin,  six 


BOUNDARIES,  TRADE,  INDIAN  AFFAIRS      307 

rected  him  to  instruct  the  colonists  in  the  art  of  mak 
ing  tar.  He  evidently  did  as  well  as  he  could  for 
several  years,  going  from  point  to  point  and  distribu 
ting  printed  directions  to  those  who  might  engage  in 
the  new  industry.  He  had  much  prejudice  to  con 
tend  with,  the  New  Englanders  refusing  to  believe 
his  argument  that  tar  making  was  so  profitable  that  a 
person  could  earn  enough  at  it  to  buy  two  coats  in  the 
same  time  he  spent  in  the  actual  manufacture  of  one, 
until  he  demonstrated  the  fact  to  their  entire  satis 
faction.713 

The  new  industry  was  soon  established,  and  under 
the  influence  of  the  bounties  paid  in  England,  a  plenti 
ful  supply  of  the  very  best  tar,  pitch,  and  turpentine 
was  secured  for  the  navy.714  At  the  same  time  ship 
ping  was  stimulated  by  the  additional  carrying  trade, 

on  hemp,  and  one  on  masts.  The  freight  rates  from  Sweden  in  1709  were 
£3  per  last  of  twelve  barrels,  while  the  rate  from  America  was  £7  ros.  per 
ton  of  eight  barrels.  This  rate,  however,  was  abnormally  high  because  of 
the  war.  See:  C.O.  324,  n,  p.  73;  Representation  on  trade,  in  Board  of 
Trade  Commercial  Series  II,  645,  p.  67. 

713  "The  country  people  or  planters  are  entered  so  far  into  making  their 
own  woolens,  that  not  one  in  forty  but  wears  his  own  carding,  spinning,  etc.  — 
they  are  so  fond  of  their  own  ways  and  thoughts  that  nothing  can  draw  them 
off  but  that  which  must  tend  to  their  present  interest  and  advantage."    The 
claims  of  profits  in  the  tar  and  pitch  making  "they  would  not  believe  — un 
less  they  see  it  tried  before  their  faces."  —  Bridger  to  the  Board,  March  13, 
1708,  in  C.O.  5,  912,  pp.  43I-432- 

714  February  25,  1717,  the  Board  heard  a  considerable  amount  of  testi 
mony  in  regard  to  the  tar  produced  in  America.     The  agents  for  Carolina 
asserted  that  New  England  and  the  West  Indies  were  supplied  from  that 
province,   and  that  there  was  plenty  of  the  best  quality  to  supply  Great 
Britain.     A  Mr.  Allen  claimed  that  there  were  not  two  hundred  barrels  of 
Swedish  tar  to  be  had  in  London.     A  Mr.  Hughs  said  it  was  fully  as  good 
as  Swedish,  and  that  Finland,  where  the  tar  had  formerly  been  produced, 
was  becoming  depopulated.     See:  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  26,  p.  203. 

March  13,  1707,  Bridger  stated  that  the  previous  year  New  England 
had  shipped  2,190  barrels  of  tar,  2,275  of  pitch,  68  of  resin,  and  4,924  of 


308        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

*  and  a  portion  of  New  England's  dangerous  energies 
diverted  to  ship-building,  shipping,  and  tar  making. 
Thus  the  precious  wool  trade  was  protected. 

The  development  of  naval  stores,  however,  was  not 
a  mania  on  the  part  of  the  Board.  All  of  America 
was  not  to  be  set  to  making  tar,  but  only  such  portions 
of  the  inhabitants  as  could  not  be  advantageously  em 
ployed  in  other  industries  which  were  profitable  to 
England.  The  production  of  naval  stores  was  not  to 
be  encouraged  in  Virginia  and  Maryland,  but  was  to 
be  discouraged  there,  for  it  was  not  so  profitable  to 
England  as  was  the  tobacco  trade.715  Nothing  was  to 
be  done  which  should  in  any  way  interfere  with  or  re 
tard  the  growth  of  the  tobacco  industry.  The  refusal 
of  the  Board  to  permit  colonial  laws  to  limit  the  im 
portation  of  negroes,  or  to  encourage  the  development 
of  cities  and  towns,  and  its  hostility  to  excessive  grants 
of  land,  all  turn  upon  the  effect  such  measures  might 
have  in  diverting  people  from  tobacco  culture.  That 
industry  was  profitable  to  England;  and  if  the  colo 
nists  were  not  engaged  in  that,  they  would  of  necessity 
engage  in  something  else,  possibly  manufacturing, 
which  would  reduce  England's  colonial  market  by 
the  amount  of  goods  they  supplied. 

The  thoroughness  with  which  the  Board  was  im- 

turpentine.  Even  after  the  bounties  were  removed,  the  importations  in  1733 
amounted  to  6,123  lasts  of  tar  and  pitch.  See:  C.O.  5,  912,  p.  431 ;  C.O.  323, 
10,  N.  42. 

715  "Xho'  the  encouragement  of  the  production  of  naval  stores  in  the 
plantations  being  of  the  highest  importance  to  England,  yet  it  is  not  fitting 
to  be  encouraged  in  those  places  which  are  proper  for  the  production  of  to 
bacco,  and  therefore  you  will  take  care  therein;  but  that  the  production  of 
naval  stores  may  be  in  such  parts  of  your  government,  as  are  only  proper 
for  them."  —  Letter  from  the  Board  to  Governor  Seymour  of  Maryland, 
March  26,  1707,  in  C.O.  5,  727,  p.  129. 


BOUNDARIES,  TRADE,  INDIAN  AFFAIRS      309 

pressed  with  the  idea  that  the  colonial  market  could 
only  be  protected  by  inducing  the  colonists  to  engage 
in  noncompetitive  industries  is  seen  in  its  various  re 
ports  on  trade  conditions.     In  1714  it  advised: 
That  as  the  provinces  on  the  continent  of  America  are  of  late 
years  very  much  increased  in  their  numbers  of  people,  par 
ticularly  the  northerly  ones,  who  have  applyed  themselves 
to  the  manufacturing  of  coarse  woolen  goods,  and  thereby 
prejudiced  our  woolen  trade  here,  and  therefore  we  humbly 
propose  that  these  people  particularly  in  New  England  and 
New  York  should  be  diverted  from  that  undertaking  by  be 
ing  encouraged  in  the  production  of  naval  stores,  since  in 
return  of  such  stores,  they  would  take  off  considerable  quan 
tities  of  woolen  manufactures  from  hence,  which  would  be  a 
double  advantage  in  this  Kingdom.716 

In  1717  it  informed  the  king  that  the  people  at  the 
north  had  been  "under  the  necessity  of  applying 
themselves"  to  woolen,  linen,  and  other  manufac 
tures,  and  the  only  way  to  prevent  it  was  to  get  them 
to  turn  their  attention  to  some  other  profitable  in 
dustry.717  And  again  in  1721,  it  said: 

It  is  therefore  to  be  presumed  that  necessity  and  not  choice  has 
put  them  to  erecting  manufactures.  Hence  the  proper  rem 
edy  would  be  proper  encouragement  of  importation  of  naval 
stores  and  minerals  of  all  kinds.  The  trade  of  most  impor 
tance  to  them  and  the  one  for  which  they  are  best  fitted  is 
shipbuilding.718 

710  Representation  of  the  Board,   November,   1714,  in  Board  of  Trade 
Trade  Papers,  23,  No.  79. 

717  Representation  on  Naval  Stores,  March  28,  1717,  in  Board  of  Trade 
Trade  Papers,  23,  no.  85.     The  Board  goes  on  to  argue  that  such  an  in 
dustry  would  not  only  enable  England  to  sell  its  wool,  but  also  enable  it  to 
purchase  naval  stores  without  paying  out  bullion.     It  would  also  increase 
the  shipping  of  the  colonies  and  diminish  that  of  the  "northern  countries," 
especially  as  it  was  feared  that  the  Tsar  was  about  to  limit  such  exports 
to  Muscovite  bottoms. 

718  Representation  on  the  state  of  His  Majesty's  plantations  in  America, 


3io        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

The  Board  never  favored  a  policy  which  might 
lead  to  the  depopulation  of  any  colony; 719  and  as  the 
presence  or  the  growth  of  population  rests  primarily 
upon  economic  conditions,  it  sought  to  bring  about 

i  such  changes  in  the  laws  of  trade  as  would  favor  each 
particular  section,  and  in  such  a  way  as  to  extend  the 
British  market  as  much  as  possible,  and  reduce  it  as 
little  as  possible.  Thus  it  favored  allowing  South 
Carolina  rice  to  be  shipped  directly  to  Portugal, 
where  it  competed  to  some  extent  with  English  wheat, 
but  more  with  Italian  products,  because  it  would 
build  up  a  market  for  English  manufactured  goods  in 
two  ways.  South  Carolina  would  be  a  better  market, 
because  the  planters  would  have  more  to  buy  with.720 
Portugal  also  would  be  a  better  market  for  the  Eng 
lish,  because  it  could  pay  for  its  rice  in  its  own  prod 
ucts,  and  the  improved  communications  would  be  a 

[  direct  aid  to  commercial  relations. 

The  ship-building  industry  in  New  England  was 
directly  favored  by  the  Board  of  Trade.  It  also 
sought  to  engage  the  farmers  there  in  the  production 

September  8,  1721,  in  C.O.  324,  10,  pp.  320-321.  A  representation  on  naval 
stores  accompanied  this  report  which  advocated  direct  encouragement  to 
the  production  of  raw  iron  and  mineral  ores  of  all  kinds.  It  also  proposed 
that  whenever  bounties  were  paid  on  any  commodity  it  should  be  included 
among  the  enumerated  products. 

719  This  has  already  been  treated  in  connection  with  the  disallowance  of 
colonial  laws.     The  Board  would  not  even  favor  a  British  law  to  prevent 
wool  manufactures,  as  it  might  make  it  very  difficult  for  the  poor  people  to 
clothe  themselves;  although  it  was  willing  to  prohibit  the  exposing  for  sale 
of  domestic-made  woolens.     See:  Representation  of  the  Board,  December  5, 
1728,  in  C.O.  324,  n,  pp.  141-142. 

720  Representation  of   1721,  in   C.O.   324,   10,   pp.   371-373.     The   Board 
pointed  out  that  the  chief  reason  Carolina  rice  was  sold  so  little  in  Portugal 
was   because   of  the   double    freights,    and   that   with   direct   shipments   the 
Italians  would  be  driven  from  the  market. 


BOUNDARIES,  TRADE,  INDIAN  AFFAIRS      311 

of  hemp,721  but  with  rather  ill  success.  It  did  what  it 
could  to  encourage  the  trade  in  lumber,  as  far  as  it 
did  not  endanger  the  forests  which  were  most  useful 
to  the  royal  navy.  It  also  favored  the  encouragement 
of  the  colonial  production  of  iron,  but  in  doing  so  it 
encountered  pressure  from  English  iron  manufac 
turers,  and  proposed  that  the  production  of  raw  iron 
only,  or  at  most  pig  and  bar  iron,  should  be  permitted 
in  the  colonies.  As  much  partially  manufactured  iron 
from  foreign  countries  found  its  way  into  the  planta 
tions  on  account  of  the  drawbacks  permitted  on  iron 
reexported  from  England,  the  Board  recommended 
that  Parliament  take  off  the  drawback,  in  the  inter 
ests  of  the  British  manufacturer.722  Its  recommenda 
tion  that  colonial  crude  iron  should  be  allowed  to 
enter  England  free  of  duty  was  rejected  in  1721  and 
again  in  I738,723  but  became  a  law  twelve  years  later. 

721  See  the  proposal  of  the  Board  that  the  government  should  send  five 
hundred  bushels  of  hemp  seed  to  New  Hampshire,  Representation  of  Sep 
tember  4,  1735,  in  CO.  5,  917,  pp.  135-136. 

722  These  importations  were  chiefly  from  Holland.    In  1705  a  drawback 
had  been  taken  off  of  manufactured  iron  and  steel,  but  continued  on  the  un- 
wrought,  which  proved  to  be  a  direct  encouragement  to  iron  manufacture  in 
America.     See:  Representation  of  the  Board,  January  26,  1711,  in  Board  of 
Trade  Commercial  Series  II,  645,  p.  436.     The  reexportations  cf  iron  and 
steel  increased  from  eighty-nine  tons  in  1704-1705  to  five  hundred  and  thirty- 
four  tons  in  1708-1709.     See:  Report  of  commissioner  of  customs,  in  C.O. 
323,  7,  K.  7. 

Sir  Ambrose  Crowley  testified  before  the  Board  that  exportations  of 
manufactured  iron  had  decreased  greatly  during  the  same  years,  and  that 
if  the  drawback  were  removed  the  iron  merchants  could  sell  so  cheaply  that 
they  could  prevent  the  development  of  a  colonial  manufacture.  See:  Board 
of  Trade  Journal,  22,  pp.  173-174. 

723  Sir  Joshua  Gee,  in  1718,  advocated  bounties  on  colonial  bar  and  pig 
iron.     The  Board,  in  its  recommendations  of  1721,  proposed  the  removal  of 
all  duties  on  pig  iron.     It  had  favored  both  bar  and  pig  iron,   and  had  a 
bill  brought  into  Parliament  taking  the  duty  off  of  both,  but  the  bar  iron 
was  opposed  and  the  bill  dropped.     See:  C.O.  324,  10,  pp.  212,  433-434. 


3i2        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

At  this  time,  however,  the  iron  interests  in  England 
secured  concessions  in  the  form  of  prohibitions  of 
steel  manufacture,  slitting  mills,  plating  mills, 
and  forges  with  tilt  hammers.724 

A  portion  of  the  iron  bill  was  forced  upon  the 
Board  of  Trade  by  the  merchants,  through  their  in 
fluence  in  the  House  of  Commons.725  Other  indus 
tries,  when  they  felt  the  effect  of  a  diminishing  trade 
to  the  colonies  and  discovered  that  it  was  in  part 
due  to  the  colonists  supplying  their  own  needs,  ap 
pealed  to  the  House  of  Commons  for  such  legislation 
as  would  enable  them  to  retain  their  markets.  Legis 
lation  in  such  cases  was  due  to  the  direct  pressure 
from  those  engaged  in  an  industry,  and  not  to  any 
policy  agreed  upon  by  the  Board  of  Trade  and  pre 
sented  as  a  desirable  measure.  The  hat  bill 72G  and 
the  attempt  to  prevent  wool  manufactures  in  the 
colonies  are  good  illustrations. 

The  Board  did  not  advocate  a  selfishly  narrow 
trade  policy,  but  believed  that  the  colonies  and  the 
home  country  should  form  one  commercial  unit,  as 
nearly  independent  of  all  others  as  possible.  It 
sought  to  retain  the  colonial  market  for  England's 
more  important  products,  and  to  open  markets  and 
encourage  profitable  industries  within  the  colonies  so 


724  The  iaw  provided  penalties  for  the  erection  of  such  prohibited  fur 
naces  or  mills;  declared  those  already  established  common  nuisances;   and 
required   the   governors   to   enforce  the   law   for  their   destruction   and   the 
prosecution  of  their  owners,  under  penalty  of  a  fine  of  £500  for  neglecting 
to  do  so.     See:  23   George  II,  cap.  20;  Pickering.     Statutes  at  Large,  vol. 
xx,  30. 

725  House  of  Commons  Journal,  vol.  xxii,  772,  776,  777,  780,  788,  791,  793, 
810,  828,  850. 

726  House  of  Commons  Journal,  vol.  xix,  245,  249-250,  252,  vol.  xxi,  802, 
824. 


BOUNDARIES,  TRADE,  INDIAN  AFFAIRS      313 

as  to.  make  them  rich  and  able  to  buy  liberally  of 
English  goods.  To  this  end  it  advocated  a  policy  of 
bounties  for  infant  industries,  and  a  policy  of  prefer 
ential  tariffs  in  favor  of  the  colonies.  This  is  seen  in 
the  reports  on  trade  conditions,  especially  that  of 
1 72 1 ,  in  recommending  a  direct  export  trade  for  Caro 
lina  rice,  and  free  trade  for  lumber,  iron,  and  min 
erals.727  It  is  also  seen  in  its  policy  of  bounties  on 
naval  stores,  and  its  direct  encouragement  to  the  pot 
ash,728  sugar,  indigo,  and  silk  industries.729  The 
manufacturers  looked  upon  the  colonies  primarily  as 
markets  for  their  goods,  and  as  they  were  a  class  con 
stantly  growing  in  influence,  they  could  make  their 
demands  felt.  The  old  mercantilist  theory  was  that 
colonies  were  primarily  sources  of  supply  for  goods 
which  could  not  be  produced  at  home.  The  Board 

727  It  is  evident  that  the  Board  had  much  more  in  mind  in  this  recom 
mendation  than  merely  using  the  colonies  as  a  source  of  supply.     The  one 
thing  which  hampered  the  British  trade  most  was  to  find  an  adequate  market 
for  colonial  products.     As  the  Board  said  in  regard  to  the  great  mineral 
resources  of  New  York  and  Pennsylvania,  it  had  good  reason  to  believe, 
"that,  if  proper  encouragement  was  given  in  Great  Britain,  to  take  off  that, 
and  their  timber,  the  people  would  be  diverted  from  the  thoughts  of  setting 
up  any  manufactures  of  their  own,   and  consequently  the  consumption  of 
Great  Britain   considerably   advanced."  —  New   York   Colonial   Documents, 
vol.   v,   604.     Beer  in  his  discussion  of  the  commercial   policy  of  England 
possibly  makes  too  much  of  what  he  calls  the  new  conception   in  British 
colonial  policy  of  colonies  for  markets  instead  of  sources  of  supply.     See:,/,,-. 
British  Colonial  Policy,  139  ff. 

728  See  the  letter  of  Popple  to  Lowndes  of  the  treasury,  asking  financial 
assistance  for  John  Keble  and  his  potash  enterprise  in  West  Jersey,  in  New 
Jersey  Archives,  vol.  iii,  347-349 ;  also  the  letter  of  Partridge  to  Governor 
Greene  of  Rhode  Island,  July  30,  1754  [Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records,  vol. 
ii,  142],  in  regard  to  Thomas  Stephens'  plans  for  a  potash  manufacture  in 
America,  and  the  encouragement  the  Board  had  given  him.     He  adds  that 
the  British  import  duty  on  potash  had  lately  been  removed. 

729  The  import  duty  on  silk  was  removed  in  1750.     23  George  II,  cap. 
29,  Pickering.  Statutes  at  Large,  vol.  xx,  97. 


314        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

tried  to  reconcile  these  two  doctrines  and  make  the 
colonies  preeminently  a  market  as  well  as  a  source  of 
supply. 

The  attempt  of  the  Board  to  preserve  the  forests  in 
America,  particularly  those  which  could  be  of  direct 
use  to  the  royal  navy,  although  it  belongs  rather  in 
the  field  of  defense  than  in  that  of  trade  policy,  was 
one  of  its  pet  measures  for  many  years.  At  first  it 
sought  to  secure  its  ends  by  the  enactment  by  the  colo 
nial  assemblies  of  laws  for  the  protection  of  mast 
trees,  but  apparently  New  Hampshire  was  the  only 
one  which  complied.  The  Board  then  appealed  to 
Parliament,  which  passed  the  White  Pine  Bill.730 
Then  followed  a  long  and  apparently  futile  attempt 
to  enforce  the  various  provisions  of  the  act,  during 
which  the  Board  secured  the  appointment  of  a  sur 
veyor  of  the  woods,  supported  him  as  best  it  could, 
but  finally  encountered  serious  difficulties  in  regard 
to  his  salary,  gradually  lost  its  enthusiasm  for  the 
work,  and  allowed  the  subject  to  be  forgotten  after 
the  ascendency  of  Newcastle.731 

iX  Aside  from  the  danger  of  competitive  industries, 
the  most  pressing  commercial  question  before  the 
Board  of  Trade  was  that  of  the  colonial  bills  of  credit, 
which  had  been  issued  in  several  of  the  colonies  after 
1690,  the  practice  having  been  started  by  Massachu- 

^'"'fso  This  failed  the  first  time  it  was  introduced,  but  became  a  law  in 
1711.  See:  CO.  5,  913,  pp.  238,  321. 

731  Mr.  Bridger  was  the  first  surveyor  of  the  woods.  He  was  followed  by 
Armstrong,  after  which  the  duty  was  made  a  part  of  that  of  the  lieutenant- 
governor  of  New  Hampshire.  Both  Bridger  and  Armstrong  reported  much 
difficulty  in  enforcing  the  law,  as  frauds  of  every  description  were  practiced 
by  those  engaged  in  the  lumber  industry.  Each  was  accused  of  corruption 
in  the  exercise  of  his  office,  in  the  form  of  selling  licenses  to  cut  timber,  and 


BOUNDARIES,  TRADE,  INDIAN  AFFAIRS      315 

setts  in  that  year.732  Other  colonies  adopted  the  plan 
either  of  issuing  bills  of  credit  or  of  lowering  the 
value  of  the  coin  and  in  a  few  years  the  merchants 
began  to  complain.  The  Board  consulted  the  law 
officers  and  decided  that  the  evil  could  be  remedied 
by  a  royal  proclamation  fixing  the  value  of  foreign 
coins  in  America,  which  was  issued  in  lyo/f,733  but 
proved  entirely  inadequate  for  the  purpose.  In  New 
York  it  was  suspended  for  a  time,  and  in  almost  no 
colony  was  it  carefully  observed;  consequently  an  act 
of  Parliament  wras  passed  in  1708,' which  aimed  to  do 
what  the  proclamation  had  failed  to  accomplish.734 

The  Board  of  Trade  sought  to  enforce  this  act  by 
instructions  to  the  governors  and  by  disallowing  such 
colonial  laws  as  contravened  it,  but  the  evil  continued 
to  grow.  Governor  Hunter  of  New  York  consented 
to  the  striking  of  bills  of  credit  as  a  means  of  getting 
a  revenue  settled  for  five  years.735  The  assembly 
passed  another  paper  money  act  in  ryiy,736  which 
went  into  effect  before  it  was  considered  by  the  Board 
of  Trade.  The  latter  disapproved  of  the  act,  but  as 

accepting  fees  to  permit  the  loading  of  timber  marked  with  the  great  arrow. 
Lieutenant-governor  Dunbar  encountered  almost  open  rebellion  when  he 
tried  to  break  up  illegal  timber  cutting.  The  letters  to  and  from  New  Eng 
land  in  the  Board  of  Trade  papers  are  filled  with  information  connected 
with  the  preservation  of  the  forests.  See:  C.O.  5,  vols.  861-882,  908-918. 

732  Palfrey,  John  G.  History  of  New  England,  vol.  iv,  20. 

733  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iv,  1131. 

734  This  bill  was  drawn  up  by  the  Board  of  Trade  at  the  request  of  a 
committee  of  the  House  of  Lords.     It  was  sent  to  the  attorney-general  for 
his  opinion  and  then  passed  by  Parliament.     See:  Board  of  Trade  Journal, 
37>  PP-  15<5-i57;  C.O.  324,  908,  p.  155;  6  Anne  cap.  30,  Pickering.  Statutes 
at  Large,  vol.  xi,  412. 

735  NCW  York  Colonial  Laws,  vol.  i,  847. 

736  —  Ibid.,  938.     This  is  the  law  which  figured  in  the  boundary  contro 
versy  with  New  Jersey. 


316        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

the  bills  had  come  into  the  hands  of  third  parties,  a 
disallowance  would  have  produced  a  great  deal  of 
confusion;  consequently,  in  1720,  the  Board  recom 
mended  that  it  be  confirmed,  but  that  no  similar  laws 
should  be  passed  in  the  future.  Circular  letters  were 
accordingly  prepared  and  sent  to  all  the  governors,  by 
which  they  were  strictly  enjoined  not  to  consent  to  any 
act  creating  additional  bills  of  credit,  except  it  have 
a  suspending  clause,  or  be  a  law  establishing  a  perma 
nent  revenue.737  Thus  the  Board  evidently  considered 
the  advantages  of  a  fixed  civil  list  more  important 
than  the  evils  of  a  paper  currency. 

The  exception  clauses  furnished  a  loophole  suffi 
ciently  large  to  enable  the  assemblies  to  evade  the 
limitation.  New  Jersey,  in  1723,  passed  an  act  which 
established  the  revenue  for  ten  years,  but  did  it  only 
as  a  device  for  creating  a  larger  amount  of  bills  of 
credit.73'  Other  colonies  adopted  the  same  expedient, 
although  few  of  them  found  it  necessary  to  establish 
the  revenue  for  a  longer  period  than  had  been  custom 
ary  before  that  time.  The  Board,  however,  objected 
to  the  new  acts;  and  in  1726  Secretary  Popple  wrote 
to  the  governor  of  Pennsylvania  the  following  senti 
ments  in  regard  to  the  paper  money  acts  of  that  prov 
ince: 

Their  Lordships  have  found  by  experience,  that  bills  of  credit 
have  been  of  very  ill  consequence  in  other  places  where  they 
have  been  issued,  particularly  in  Carolina,  where  not  only  the 
province  but  the  merchants  have  sustain'd  great  losses  there 
by. 

737  Order  in  Council,  May  19,  1720,  in  New  York  Colonial  Documents, 
vol.  v,  p.  539- 

738  Letter  of  Burnet  to  the  Board,  December   16,   1723,    in   New  York 
Colonial  Documents,  vol.  v,  700. 


BOUNDARIES,  TRADE,  INDIAN  AFFAIRS      317 

Were  it  not  for  the  disorders  and  inconveniences  of 
such  action,  the  acts  would  be  repealed. 

And  if  any  further  acts  are  pass'd  for  creating  more  bills  of 
credit  than  those  already  issued,  their  Lordships  will  certainly 
think  themselves  oblig'd  to  lay  them  before  His  Majesty  for 
his  disallowance.739 

The  Board  insisted  more  and  more  that  provision 
should  be  made  for  sinking  the  bills  of  credit  within 
a  reasonable  time.  An  act  of  New  Jersey  which 
made  current  forty  thousand  pounds  in  bills  of  credit 
had  a  provision  for  loaning  these  bills  on  good  se 
curity  at  five  per  cent  interest,  which  was  to  be  set 
aside  as  a  fund  for  sinking  them;  but  as  the  interest 
continued  to  accumulate  in  the  treasury,  the  assembly 
decided  that  it  would  be  better  to  use  it  for  current 
expenses.  Governor  Burnet  gave  his  consent  to  the 
appropriation  act,  although  forbidden  to  do  so  by  his 
instructions.740  His  successor,  Montgomerie,  had 
special  directions  to  secure  the  repeal  of  this  act,  but 
the  assembly  refused  to  concur  with  the  wishes  of  the 
Board;  whereupon  the  latter  had  the  act  disal 
lowed.741 

Massachusetts  always  refused  to  add  a  suspending 
clause  to  an  act;  and  in  spite  of  the  governor's  instruc 
tions  on  that  point,  the  assembly  (1733-1734)  passed 
laws  creating  bills  of  credit  in  excess  of  the  sum  al 
lowed  for  annual  expenses,  which  laws  were  consid 
ered  by  the  Board  in  1735  and  allowed  to  expire 

739  Pennsylvania  Archives,  first  series,  vol.  i,  186-187. 

740  Letter  of   Burnet  to  the  Board,  December  20,    1726,   in   New  York 
Colonial  Documents,  vol.  v,  810. 

741  Letter  of  the  Board  to  Montgomerie,  July  21,  1731,  in  New  Jersey 
Archives,  vol.  v,  302. 


3i8        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

without  being  disallowed.742    The    Board,  however, 
instructed  the  governor  as  follows : 

We  do  hereby  strictly  enjoin  and  require  you  upon  pain  of 
our  highest  displeasure  and  of  being  immediately  recalled  from 
that  our  government  not  to  give  your  assent  for  the  future 
to  any  act  whatever  for  issuing  new  bills  of  credit  except  only 
thirty  thousand  pounds  for  annual  support  of  the  Government 
or  to  any  act  for  re-issuing  old  bills  or  that  shall  continue 
any  bills  current  beyond  the  time  limited  by  the  acts  for 
emitting  them,  without  inserting  in  every  such  case  a  clause 
for  suspending  the  execution  of  every  such  act  until  our 
pleasure  shall  be  declared  thereupon.743 

The  war  from  1744  to  1748  still  further  increased 
the  amount  of  the  outstanding  issues.  In  the  mean 
time,  the  Board  had  concentrated  its  attention  on  an 
other  phase  of  the  paper  money  question.  Most  of 
the  colonies  had  endowed  their  paper  currency  with 
legal  tender  qualities,  to  which  the  Board  was  es 
pecially  opposed ;  and  soon  after  Halifax  became  head 
of  the  Board,  it  was  decided  to  ask  Parliament  to 
abolish  all  colonial  paper  money.  The  attempt  was 
made  in  1749;  the  House  of  Commons  gave  leave  to 
bring  in  a  bill,  and  a  committee  of  nine,  five  of  whom 
were  members  of  the  Board,  was  appointed  to  draw 
up  the  measure.744  The  bill  passed  its  first  reading, 
was  considered  in  the  committee  of  the  whole,  of 
which  Fane  was  chairman,  but  failed  to  pass.  The 
House,  however,  ordered  the  Board  to  present,  at  the 
beginning  of  the  next  session,  a  full  report  of  the  ex 
tent  of  bills  of  credit  in  the  plantations,  which  it  did; 

742  Massachusetts  Acts  and  Resolves,  vol.  ii,  701. 

743  —  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  745. 

744  House  of  Commons  Journal,  vol.  xxv,  746.     The  bill  was  strongly 
opposed  by  the  colonial  agents,  who  presented  petitions  in  behalf  of  their  con 
stituents  and  were  heard  before  the  House  by  counsel. 


BOUNDARIES,  TRADE,  INDIAN  AFFAIRS      319 

and  in  1751  an  act  was  passed  prohibiting  such  bills 
in  the  New  England  colonies.745 

The  Board  sought  to  secure  its  object  in  the  other 
colonies  by  peremptory  orders  to  the  governors;  but 
the  French  and  Indian  War  compelled  the  latter  to 
disregard  their  instructions,  and  even  forced  them  to 
permit  the  new  issues  to  be  made  legal  tenders.746  The 
assemblies  did,  however,  provide  for  the  sinking  of 
their  new  emissions  within  a  reasonable  time.  Seeing 
that  it  must  either  change  the  instructions  or  tacitly 
acquiesce  in  their  violation,  the  Board  instructed  the 
governors  to  consent  to  such  issues  until  the  close  of 
the  war,  when  the  old  instruction  was  renewed.747  In 
1764  the  aid  of  Parliament  was  again  asked;  and  the 
act  of  that  year,  which  was  also  prepared  by  the 
Board  of  Trade,  included  all  the  colonies.748 

It  is  thus  seen  that  the  Board  constantly  opposed 
bills  of  credit  in  the  interest  of  commerce,  but  that  its 
opposition  was  not  very  successful.  The  slowness  of 
communication  and  the  still  slower  methods  of  the 
Board  made  it  difficult  to  disallow  the  acts  creating 
paper  money  before  third  parties  had  acquired  the 
bills,  after  which  a  disallowance  was  not  expedient. 
Parliament  was  successfully  applied  to;  but  the  legis- 

745  24  George  II,  cap.  53,  Pickering.  Statutes  at  Large,  vol.  xx,  306. 

746  Bernard  in  a  letter  to  the  Board,  in  which  he  discusses  the  necessity 
of  issuing  more  bills  of  credit  and  the  consequent  change   in  his  instruc 
tions,  says:     "And  it  will  be  absolutely  necessary  that  this  power  should  be 
free  from  the  exception  to  making  the  bills  a  legal  tender:  for  I  am  satisfied 
the  Assembly  will  not  pass   a  bill  with  that  exception."  —  Bernard  to  the 
Board,  August  31,  1758,  in  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ix,  133. 

747  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  ix,  147,  274. 

748  The  chairman  and  two  of  the  other  five  members  of  the  committee  to 
bring  in  the  bill   were  members  of  the  Board.     See:  House  of  Commons 
Journal,  vol.  xxix,  1027 ;  4  George  III,  cap.  34,  Pickering.  Statutes  at  Large, 
vol.  xxvi,  103. 


320        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

lation,  acting  as  it  did  upon  governors,  was  not  satis 
factory.  It  irritated  the  assemblies,  but  did  not  re 
strain  them  from  issuing  more  bills  when  they  saw  fit 
to  do  so.  It  is  strange  that  the  Board  did  not  take 
active  measures  to  remove  the  primary  cause  of  the 
paper  money  issues  by  providing  some  adequate  form 
of  circulating  medium.  Some  such  measure  as  the 
establishment  of  a  mint  for  America,  or  a  bank,  or 
both,  would  have  gone  far  toward  solving  the  vexed 
question. 

Defense 

In  1696  the  most  pressing  colonial  question  was 
that  of  defense;  and  as  soon  as  the  Board  was  organ 
ized,  it  began  to  consider  the  most  effectual  means  for 
the  protection  of  New  York.  Its  first  report  on  the 
subject,  which  appeared  in  September,  1696,  stated 
the  quotas  which  had  been  assigned  to  each  of  the 
colonies,  and  their  failure  to  observe  the  royal  order 
on  that  point.  The  report  adds: 

It  is  almost  incredible  that  His  Majesty's  governor  of  New 
York  in  the  middle  of  above  forty  thousand  English  that  he 
has  in  his  neighbourhood  should  say  as  he  does,  that  he  has 
but  the  four  companies  His  Majesty  sent,  and  are  in  His 
Majesty's  pay  ...  to  rely  on  for  the  defense  of  that 
frontier,  in  case  of  any  attempt  from  the  French.749 

*  The  Board  gave  as  its  opinion  that  there  was  force 
enough  in  America  for  purposes  of  defense  and  that 
the  colonies  should  protect  themselves;  and  as  the 
power  of  the  English  was  of  little  avail  so  long  as  it 
was  divided,  the  whole  military  power  of  the  north 
ern  provinces  should  be  united  under  one  military 

749  Representation  on  the  condition  of  the  northern  provinces,  in  New 
York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iv,  227. 


BOUNDARIES,   TRADE,  INDIAN  AFFAIRS      321 

officer.  ^The  recommendation  took  the  form  of  the 
Bellomont  commission,  which  was  discussed  in  an 
other  connection.  In  the  meantime,  however,  Govern 
or  Fletcher,  who  had  been  asking  for  supplies,  for 
presents  for  the  Indians,  and  for  recruits,750  was  not 
left  unsupported.  The  Board  recommended  that  his 
requisitions  should  be  honored  without  delay,751  and 
in  a  few  months  notified  him  that  the  supplies  had 
been  forwarded. 

The  above  incident  illustrates  the  position  of  the 
Board  in  providing  for  the  defense  of  the  colonies. 
Accounts  were  kept  in  its  office  of  the  military  situa 
tion  in  the  plantations,  and  the  governors  were  con 
stantly  called  upon  for  reports  which  would  keep  the 
records  up  to  date.  When  a  governor  found  that  he 
must  have  military  supplies  in  addition  to  those  which 
his  assembly  was  able  to  furnish,  he  sent  a  request  to 
the  Board  or  to  one  of  the  principal  secretaries  of 
state.  No  matter  to  whom  the  requisition  was  for 
warded  in  the  first  instance,  it  was  referred  to  the 
Board  for  consideration,  since  that  bureau  alone  had 
the  necessary  information  to  pass  upon  it.752  Upon 
the  report  of  the  Board,  the  treasury  or  the  ordnance 
department  furnished  the  supplies  asked  for,  which 
might  be  guns,  ammunition,  clothing,  intrenching 
tools,  or  even  money.  These  were  then  forwarded  to 
the  governor  of  the  province  by  the  Board  of  Trade 
directly,  or  turned  over  by  that  body  to  his  agent, 
who  looked  after  their  transportation. 

750  See  the  letters  of  Governor  Fletcher  during  the  year  1696,  New  York 
Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iv,  passim. 

751  Representation  of  the  Board,  October  14,  1696,  Ibid.,  230. 

752  See  the  requests  of  Bellomont,  Cornbury,  and  Hunter  for  supplies,  in 
New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vols.  iv,  v,  passim. 


322        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

The  commissioners  of  ordnance  opposed  these  de 
mands  for  military  supplies,  as  they  came  unexpect 
edly,  and  there  was  no  separate  fund  from  which 
to  defray  their  cost.  This  resulted  in  an  effort  to  shift 
such  charges  upon  the  colonies.  The  supplies  were 
furnished  as  they  were  needed,  but  on  condition  that 
the  colony  to  which  they  were  sent  should  reimburse 
the  home  government  for  their  first  cost  and  the  ex 
pense  of  sending  them..  In  1702  supplies  to  the  value 
of  £3,388  were  sent  to  Virginia  in  answer  to  an  urgent 
request  from  Governor  Nicholson,  but  they  were 
ordered  to  be  paid  for  out  of  the  quit  rents  of  that 
province.753  Similar  action  was  taken  when  other  mili 
tary  stores  were  forwarded  from  England.  Massa 
chusetts  failed  to  keep  her  promise  to  pay  for  some 
guns  and  ammunition  which  she  received  in  1704. 
When  she  applied  for  a  new  quota  in  1742,  the  Com 
mittee  of  the  Privy  Council  refused  to  furnish  them 
until  the  old  account  of  five  hundred  pounds  was 
settled.75'  The  agent  agreed  to  pay  this  and  the  new 
supplies  were  granted.755  In  some  cases  the  Board 
had  officers  appointed  to  care  for  the  arms  and  the 
public  stores  which  had  been  supplied,  and  the  one 
appointed  for  Maryland  received  a  salary  of  £200  a 

753  This  could  easily  be  done,  as  there  was  a  considerable  balance  in  the 
hands  of  the  receiver-general  in  Virginia.     A  warrant  was  drawn  for  the 
amount,  and  the  governor  ordered  to  remit  by  bills  of  exchange,  payable 
to  the  paymaster  of  the  ordnance.     See:  C.O.  5,  1360,  pp.  218-219. 

754  Cannon  were  also  furnished  in  1704,  but  apparently  they  were  paid 
for  by  the  home  government.     The  stores  of  heavy  ordnance  asked  for  in 
1742  amounted  to  £4,877  i6s.  4d.     The  first  application  came  before  the 
committee,  August  24,  1742,  and  was  finally  granted  June  30,  1743.     See: 
Privy  Council  Register,  "George  II,"  vol.  viii,  224,  288,  457. 

755  privy  Council  Register,  "George  II,"  vol.  viii,  457. 


BOUNDARIES,  TRADE,  INDIAN  AFFAIRS      323 

year  out  of  the  permanent  revenue  there.75*  In  1712 
the  Board  attempted  to  secure  a  fixed  annual  allow 
ance  from  which  to  defray  the  many  calls  for  colo 
nial  supplies; 757  but  as  the  war  closed  soon  after,  the 
old  method  of  meeting  each  call,  when  it  came,  con 
tinued.758 

The  Board  secured  troops  for  the  colonies,  some  of 
which  were  regulars  sent  from  England,  and  some  re 
cruits  enlisted  in  America.  It  also  sent  over  compe 
tent  engineers  to  superintend  the  erection  of  fortifica 
tions  on  the  frontiers  and  about  the  harbors,  of  whom 
Colonel  Romer  is  the  best  known,  and  the  one  upon 
whose  reports  the  Board  secured  an  appropriation  of 
five  hundred  pounds  for  the  erection  of  a  fort  in  the 
Onondaga  country.759  Additional  sums  were  after 
ward  sent  over  from  England  for  the  forts  at  Albany 
and  Schenectady,  although  the  colonies  usually  bore 
the  charge  of  whatever  fortifications  they  deemed  es 
sential  to  their  own  safety. 

The  colonies,  however,  would  not,  or  possibly  could 
not,  erect  and  maintain  permanent  fortifications,  nor 
did  the  Board  expect  them  to  do  so.  New  York  was 
the  most  important  of  the  frontier  colonies  as  far  as 

756  Board  to  Governor  Seymour,  February  4,  1706,  in  C.O.  5,  726,  pp. 
242,  369. 

*•  T57  Representation  of  the  Board,  February  15,  1712,  C.O.  324,  10,  p.  i. 
There  had  been  heavy  demands  for  ordnance  supplies  from  Virginia,  Massa 
chusetts  Bay,  Leeward  Islands,  and  Nevis,  but  the  Board  had  been  informed 
that  there  were  no  funds  available  for  such  supplies  for  the  plantations, 
hence  this  request. 

758  See  the  letter  of  the  Board  to  Newcastle,  February  20,  1730,  in  C.O. 
5,  400,  pp.  273-274,  recommending  that  seventy-two  cannon  and  five  hun 
dred  muskets  be  sent  to  South  Carolina. 

759  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iv,  305,  326,  334,  339,  487,  609, 
676,  and  passim. 


324        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

the  French  were  concerned ;  it  was  necessary  to  main 
tain  fortified  posts  in  that  colony,  not  merely  for  its 
own  protection,  but  for  that  of  the  other  northern 
provinces  as  well.  The  Board  determined  which 
posts  should  be  made  permanent  and  provided  for 
the  expense  of  erecting  the  proper  defenses  by  appro 
priations  from  England,  by  sums  given  by  the  as 
sembly  of  New  York,  and  by  contributions  which  it 
attempted  to  secure  from  the  neighboring  colonies,760 
but  this  last  measure  was  not  very  successful.  In  1700 
the  Board  proposed  to  secure  five  thousand  pounds 
from  that  source,  but  the  colonies  replied  that  they 
could  not  afford  the  additional  charge  after  the  heavy 
expenses  of  the  last  war.™1  The  request  for  troops  to 
man  the  defenses  met  with  a  similar  rebuff,  and  the 
Board  was  never  able  to  get  the  colonies  to  assist  each 
other  except  in  time  of  actual  war. 

The  process  of  securing  permanent  defenses  for  a 
port  is  illustrated  in  the  attempt  to  fortify  the  harbor 
at  Cape  Lookout.  In  1755  Governor  Dobbs  wrote 
the  Board  of  Trade  a  most  glowing  description  of  it; 
for  a  small  sum  it  could  be  made  a  Gibraltar  of  de 
fense  and  would  furnish  ample  room  for  all  the  Brit 
ish  navy  in  American  waters.  The  secretary  of  the 
Board  of  Trade  answered  his  letter  quite  promptly 
and  asked  him  to  have  a  careful  survey  made  of  the 
harbor  and  plans  drawn  for  the  necessary  fortifica 
tions,762  which,  together  with  an  estimate  of  the  cost  of 

760  See  the  representation  of  the  Board,  October  4,  1700,  for  a  detailed 
estimate  of  the  charges  of  the  forts  at  Albany  and  Schenectady  which  should 
be  borne  by  the  various  colonies,  in  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iv, 
705-706. 

761  —  Ibid.,  921-922. 

762  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  vol.  v,  442-443. 


BOUNDARIES,  TRADE,  INDIAN  AFFAIRS      325 

the  projected  work,  were  to  be  sent  to  the  Board, 
which  would  then  be  in  a  position  to  decide  on  the 
merits  of  the  proposed  defenses.  The  Board  was 
thus  very  careful  not  to  ask  the  government  to  pay 
for  the  erection  of  any  forts  until  it  was  convinced 
that  they  were  necessary  and  that  they  could  be  se 
cured  in  no  other  way. 

Even  the  forts  which  were  erected  by  the  colonies 
were  frequently  supplied  with  ordnance  and  stores  at 
the  request  of  the  Board.  In  1753  Governor  Dobbs 
asked  that  such  supplies  should  be  furnished  for  the 
forts  which  the  province  of  North  Carolina  had 
erected  on  Cape  Fear  River.  A  final  answer  was  not 
given  to  this  request  for  two  years,  when  the  Board 
reported: 

That  although  we  are  sensible  that  the  frequent  applications 
of  this  nature  which  have  of  late  been  made  by  the  colonies 
in  America  bring  a  very  heavy  expense  on  this  country  nev 
ertheless  as  the  ordnance  and  stores  prayed  for  in  the  said 
memorial  are  represented  to  us  to  be  absolutely  necessary  for 
the  security  and  defence  of  the  Province  of  North  Carolina 
and  as  His  Majesty  has  been  graciously  pleased  to  indulge 
other  of  his  colonies  in  the  like  request,  we  are  humbly  of 
opinion  that  His  Majesty  may  be  graciously  pleased  that  such 
ordnance  and  stores  as  from  the  plan  of  the  said  fort  and 
Mr.  Dobbs'  account  of  it  shall  appear  to  be  absolutely  neces 
sary  may  be  sent  thither.763 

A  part  of  the  Board's  plans  for  defense  turned  up 
on  the  Indian  alliances  which  will  be  discussed  in 
another  place.  It  has  already  been  indicated  that  the 
plans  for  union  and  the  attacks  upon  the  charter  and 

763  Representation  of  the  Board,  April  24,  1755,  in  North  Carolina 
Colonial  Records,  vol.  v,  399-400. 


326        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

proprietary  colonies  were  actuated  by  a  desire  to  pro 
vide  better  defense  for  the  colonies  and  to  secure 
more  effectual  enforcement  of  the  trade  laws.  From 
an  imperialistic  point  of  view  the  first  of  these  was 
the  more  important,  but  the  second  afforded  the  more 
tangible  argument  for  influencing  commercial  Eng 
land. 

In  the  period  of  peace  which  followed  the  close  of 
Queen  Anne's  War,  the  Board  had  little  to  do  in  car 
ing  for  the  defense  of  the  plantations,  as  the  struggle 
for  final  control  of  the  interior  of  the  continent  had 
not  begun.  About  1717,  however,  the  Board  received 
information  that  the  French  were  settling  on  the  Mis 
sissippi,  and  had  opened  communications  between 
Canada  and  Louisiana.  Letters  were  written  to  the 
governors  of  the  chief  colonies  in  America,  directing 
them  to  learn  the  extent  of  the  French  operations,  and 
to  suggest  the  most  effective  means  of  preventing  the 
English  colonies  from  being  enclosed.764  This  was 
the  beginning  of  a  western  policy  of  the  British  colo 
nial  officials,  which  continued  for  nearly  half  a  cen 
tury. 

The  surest  method  of  checking  French  or  Spanish 
occupation  of  the  back  country  was  to  expand  the 
English  settlements  into  that  region  as  rapidly  as  pos 
sible,  and  so  occupy  the  lands  before  their  rivals. 
Here  colonial  defense  fitted  closely  into  the  trade 
policy  of  the  Board  -  an  increase  in  population  would 
further  both.  In  1720,  South  Carolina  was  ordered 
to  be  taken  "Provisionally  into  the  hands  of  the 

704  Letter  of  the  Board  to  Governor  Spotswood  of  Virginia,  January  29, 
1718,  in  C.O.  5,  1365,  pp.  42-43 ;  to  Governor  Shute  of  Massachusetts,  March 
16,  1718,  in  C.O.  5,  915,  pp.  102-103. 


BOUNDARIES,  TRADE,  INDIAN  AFFAIRS      327 

Crown,"  ostensibly  as  a  means  of  preventing  the  pos 
sible  loss  of  that  colony.765 

The  next  year  the  Board  advised  Carteret  that 
special  inducements  should  be  offered  to  settlers  in 
the  western  counties  of  Virginia,  in  the  shape  of  a  ten 
years'  exemption  from  quit  rents  and  a  remission  of 
the  customary  registration  fee  for  taking  up  land.  As 
the  settlements  in  question  controlled  the  mountain 
passes,  it  urged  that: 

If  these  passes  are  not  soon  secured,  they  may  fall  into  the 
hands  of  the  French,  who  are  already  situated  nearer  them 
than  His  Majesty's  subjects  are  by  their  lodgments  upon  the 
Great  Lakes  which  continue  their  communication  from  the 
River  St.  Lawrence  to  that  of  Mississippi,  and  it  is  very  ob 
vious  of  what  fatal  consequences  such  a  neglect  on  our  part 
must  certainly  prove  to  the  British  plantations  which  would 
be  thereby  perpetually  exposed  to  the  Incursions  of  the 
French  and  of  the  Indian  nations  in  their  interest;  we  cannot, 
therefore,  but  be  of  opinion  that  all  possible  encouragement 
should  be  given  for  the  enlarging  and  extending  of  the  Brit 
ish  settlements  toward  the  said  mountains,  as  one  of  the  most 
effectual  means  to  prevent  the  growing  power  and  further 
encroachments  of  the  French  in  those  parts.766 

The  Board  also  advised  that  forts  should  be  erected 
to  control  the  passes  and  that  two  companies  of  sol 
diers  should  be  sent  to  Virginia  to  garrison  them, 
adding  that  they  were  "of  opinion  and  have  long  been 

res  Order  in  Council  reassuming  the  government  of  South  Carolina, 
August  u,  1720.  "Their  Excellencies,  the  Lord  Justices  in  Council,  this 
day  taking  into  consideration  the  great  importance  of  the  Province  of  Caro 
lina,  both  with  regard  to  its  own  product,  and  as  it  is  a  frontier  to  His 
Majesty's  provinces  on  the  continent  of  America,  and  the  eminent  danger  of 
its  being  lost  in  this  critical  juncture,  by  the  confused  state  of  its  present 
government,  are  pleased  to  Order,"  etc.  See:  Privy  Council  Register, 
"George  I,"  vol.  ii,  463. 

706  Board  to  Carteret,  July  17,  1721,  in  C.O.  5,  1365,  pp.  231-234. 


328        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

so  that  it  will  be  impossible  to  improve  or  even  pre 
serve  His  Majesty's  empire  in  America  without  send 
ing  a  military  force  thither."  767  These  recommenda 
tions  did  not  find  the  secretary  of  state  so  enthusiastic 
for  westward  expansion  as  the  Board,  for  two  years 
later,  in  a  letter  to  Lieutenant-governor  Drysdale,  the 
Board  said  nothing  had  been  done,  and  that  it  antici 
pated  that  the  proposed  remission  of  the  quit  rents 
would  "meet  with  very  great  difficulties  at  the  treas 
ury."  768 

In  the  meantime  orders  had  been  sent  to  Governor 
Burnet  of  New  York  "to  extend  with  caution  the 
English  settlements  as  far  as  possible."  769  This  Bur- 
net  did,  and  erected  a  fort  at  Oswego,  to  which  the 
French  objected  and  in  turn  advanced  their  own  out 
posts,  which  brought  forth  another  warning  from 
the  Board  of  the  dangers  from  French  aggression.770 

Grants  of  land  to  prospective  settlers  in  the  back 
country  received  ready  encouragement  from  the 
Board.  In  recommending  that  Mr.  Purry  should  be 
given  a  grant  of  forty-eight  thousand  acres  in  South 
Carolina,  it  said  that  it  had  been  the  constant  sense 
that  all  the  colonies,  and  especially  the  two  frontiers, 
should  be  peopled  as  rapidly  as  possible  with  white 
inhabitants.  The  accession  of  new  inhabitants  could 
not  fail  to  increase  the  trade  and  commerce  of  the 
kingdom  and  increase  the  revenues  of  quit  rents.  As 

767  Representation  of   the   Board,   July   17,   1721,   in   C.O.    5,    1365,   pp. 
232-233. 

768  Board  to  Drysdale,  June  19,  1723,  in  C.O.  5,  1365,  p.  246. 

769  Instructions   sent  to  Governor  Burnet  by  the  Board  in   1722.     See: 
Chalmers,  George.  Introduction  to  the  Revolt,  vol.  ii,  52. 

770  Representation  of  the  Board,  April  6,  1732,  in  New  York  Colonial 
Documents,  vol.  v,  932. 


BOUNDARIES,  TRADE,  INDIAN  AFFAIRS      329 

South  Carolina  was  a  frontier  to  both  the  French  and 
the  Spanish  settlements,  and  was  surrounded  by  a 
great  number  of  Indian  natives,  the  grant  was  fa 
vored,  since  "the  well  peopling  of  this  province 
seems  a  necessary  means  for  the  defense  and  security 
of  all  our  plantations  on  the  continent  of  America."  771 
Other  grants  met  with  the  same  favor,  except  when 
the  land  in  question  was  claimed  by  different  persons, 
in  which  cases  commissions  were  proposed  to  mark  the 
boundaries,  so  as  not  to  retard  settlement.772  Backed 
by  this  constant  support  from  the  Board,  the  English 
settlements  were  pushed  steadily  westward  until  they 
began  to  cross  the  mountains.  In  1749  the  Board  re 
ported  favorably  on  a  grant  to  the  Ohio  Company  of 
five  hundred  thousand  acres  on  the  condition  that 
they  plant  a  settlement  on  the  banks  of  the  Ohio 
River,  and  instructed  the  governor  of  Virginia  to 
pass  the  grant,  the  settlement  of  which  brought  on 
war  with  the  French.773 

Up  to  the  outbreak  of  formal  war,  the  Board  ac 
tively  encouraged  westward  expansion.  In  1752,  in 
commenting  on  the  unfair  way  in  which  the  laws  of 

771  Representation  of  the  Board,  May  26,  1732,  in  C.O.  5,  401,  pp.  37-38. 

772  See  the  representation  on  William  Keith's  proposal  for  settling  the 
back  country,  July  20,   1732.     Keith  and  some  associates  planned  to  settle 
some  thousands  of  families  from  Switzerland  in  the  region  back  of  Virginia, 
but  Lords  Baltimore  and  Fairfax  had  claims  on  the  land.     The  Board  pro 
posed    a  commission   to  mark   out  the    boundary.     September   13,    1732,    it 
advised  Lieutenant-governor  Gooch  of  Virginia  not  to  make   any  further 
grants  beyond  the  mountains  until  the  claims  could  be  determined.     Gooch 
had  written  that  he  had  permitted  some  settlements  to  be  made.     See:  C.O. 
5,  1366,  pp.  86-88,  92. 

773  T^  original  instruction  was  to  pass  a  grant  of  two  hundred  thousand 
acres,  but  before  it  could  be  confirmed  other  petitions  had  been  presented  to 
the  Privy  Council;  consequently  the  first  instruction  was  referred  back  to 
the  Board,  where  the  grant  was  increased  to  five  hundred  thousand  acres. 


330        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

Virginia  favored  the  large  landholder,  and  discour 
aged  the  poor  settler,  it  advised  that  every  encourage 
ment  should  be  given  to  foreign  protestants,  that  they 
should  be  exempted  from  all  parochial  charges  and 
taxes  for  a  term  of  years,  not  exceeding  fifteen,  and 
advised  that  the  ecclesiastical  laws  of  Virginia  be  so 
modified  as  to  accomplish  this  result.  These  measures 
were  proposed  as  desirable  means  of  encouraging  the 
rapid  settlement  of  the  interior.774  Two  years  later 
we  find  the  Board  urging  that,  as 

The  settlement  of  the  country  west  of  the  great  ridge  of 
mountains  seems  to  us  of  the  greatest  consequence,  as  noth 
ing  can  more  effectually  tend  to  defeat  the  dangerous  de 
signs  of  the  French  .  .  .  therefore,  all  proper  encour 
agement  should  be  given  for  the  enlarging  and  extending  the 
British  settlements  in  this  part  of  the  country. 

To  this  end  it  advised  the  remission  of  all  fees  and 
quit  rents  for  a  period  of  ten  years,  as  an  inducement 
to  actual  settlers  to  enter  the  region.775  Thus  up  to 

See  the  entries  in  the  Journal  for  December  9,  1748,  February  14,  and  Feb 
ruary  21,  1749,  in  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  56,  57. 

774  "The  advantages  and  security  arising  from  erecting  settlements  in 
the  interior  parts  of  America,  clearly  mark  out  the  good  policy  of  giving 
them  all  possible  encouragement;   it  is  therefore  matter  of  surprise  to  us, 
that  Virginia,  whose  situation  and  circumstances  not  only  admit,  but  call  for, 
an    increase    of    inhabitants,    should    have    established    and    acquiesced    in 
regulations,  which   from  the  very  nature  of  them,  have  a   very  different 
tendency  and  effect. 

The  success  of  the  settlement  of  Spottsylvania  and  Brunswick  where 
foreign  protestants  were  allowed  to  be  exempted  "from  parochial  charges 
and  taxes  for  a  certain  number  of  years,  sufficiently  point  out  the  impro 
priety  of  such  a  system  .  .  .  and  we  are  of  opinion  that  it  would  be 
greatly  for  the  interest  and  advantage  of  the  colony,  if  foreign  protestants 
were  exempted  from  all  parochial  charges  and  taxes  whatever  for  a  term  of 
years,  not  exceeding  fifteen  from  the  time  of  their  arrival  in  the  province."  — 
Board  to  Governor  Dinwiddie  of  Virginia,  November  29,  1752,  in  C.O.  5, 
1366,  pp.  518-522. 

775  As  the  Virginia  assembly  had  spent  a  considerable  sum  in  advancing 


BOUNDARIES,  TRADE,  INDIAN  AFFAIRS      331 

the  very  outbreak  of  the  French  and  Indian  War  the 
British  Board  of  Trade  was  thoroughly  committed 
to  the  policy  of  rapidly  filling  up  the  back  country 
and  pushing  settlements  across  the  mountains  into  the 
Ohio  Valley.  It  even  advised  that  the  crown  bear  a 
portion  of  the  cost  of  such  settlements  by  waiving  the 
land  revenue  for  a  time. 

There  is  one  apparent  exception  to  this  policy  of 
extending  the  English  settlements  into  the  back  coun 
try.  The  Board  refused  to  favor  grants  of  land  be 
yond  the  Altamaha  between  South  Carolina  and  the 
Spanish  settlements,  and  in  1736  gave  strict  orders  to 
the  governor  of  South  Carolina  not  to  make  any 
grants  in  that  region,  notwithstanding  the  inhabitants 
of  his  province  insisted  upon  entering  and  settling 
upon  the  forbidden  lands.776  It  even  went  so  far  as  to 
have  the  settlers  who  entered  the  region  in  defiance 
of  its  orders  forcibly  removed,  although  a  fortified 
post  was  held  there.777 

Why  should  the  Board  favor  expansion  toward  the 

the  settlements  in  that  region,  the  Board  thought  the  crown  could  well  afford 
to  contribute  a  little  in  the  form  of  a  remission  of  land  charges  for  a  period 
of  ten  years,  especially  as  it  considered  the  total  revenues  would  be  enlarged 
by  so  doing.  As  a  further  inducement  to  settlers,  the  Board  proposed  that 
grants  beyond  the  mountains  should  be  limited  to  small  quantities.  Large 
plantations  were  not  wanted,  as  they  discouraged  close  settling.  Population 
with  small  farms  and  few  slaves  was  what  was  desired  for  purposes  of  de 
fense.  See:  Report  to  the  Committee  of  the  Privy  Council  on  western  settle 
ments  and  a  request  from  the  House  of  Burgesses  that  the  quit  rents  be 
remitted  in  the  region  and  that  grants  be  limited,  June  20,  1754,  in  C.O.  5, 

1367,  PP.  73-74- 

776  Additional    instructions   to   Lieutenant-governor   Broughton   of   South 
Carolina,  December  3,  1736,  in  C.O.  5,  401,  pp.  192-193. 

777  See  the  letter  of  the  Board  to  Pitt,  April  28,  1758,  advising  him  that 
such  action  should  be  taken,  and  the  letter  from  Governor  Ellis  of  Georgia 
to  the  Board,  January  28,  1759,  informing  it  that  Pitt's  orders  in  the  matter 
had  been  executed.     C.O.  5,  646,  N.  54;  673,  pp.  44-45. 


332        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

French  and  oppose  it  toward  the  Spanish  frontier? 
Was  it  trying  to  prevent  the  settlement  of  that  region 
so  as  to  keep  the  colonists  near  the  coast?  Not  at  all! 
The  object  of  expansion  westward  was  to  defend  the 
settlements  nearer  the  coast  from  the  attacks  of  the 
French  and  their  Indian  allies,  and  so  to  occupy  the 
back  country  that  such  dangers  should  be  pushed 
farther  and  farther  away.  The  settlements  beyond 
the  Altamaha  were  in  a  region  occupied  by  Indians 
in  alliance  with  the  English,  and  there  was  danger 
that  the  encroachments  of  the  whites  might  drive 
them  over  to  the  enemy.778  Hence  it  was  as  good  pol 
icy  to  check  expansion  there  for  a  time,  as  it  was  to 
encourage  it  on  the  borders  of  Virginia.  The  whole 
western  policy  was  turning  upon  the  question  of  de 
fense.  The  enemies  to  be  feared  were  France  and 
Spain,  in  the  struggle  the  Indian  tribes  had  to  be 
reckoned  with,  and  an  expansion  of  the  existing  settle 
ments  was  favored  or  opposed  as  it  affected  the  ques 
tion  of  defense.  In  the  case  of  Virginia,  western 
settlements  strengthened  the  English  position ;  but  on 
the  Altamaha,  if  they  resulted  in  alienating  the  In 
dians  and  driving  them  over  to  the  enemy,  instead  of 
being  a  source  of  strength,  they  would  become  an  ele 
ment  of  weakness. 

During  the  ascendency  of  Newcastle  the  Board  of 
Trade  played  a  very  minor  part  in  colonial  affairs. 
The  war  from  1744  to  1748  came  at  a  time  when  the 

778  "We  think  it  may  be  of  very  dangerous  consequence"  to  allow  the 
people  to  remain  in  a  settlement  "begun  without  His  Majesty's  authority" 
and  in  defiance  of  Governor  Lyttelton's  orders  for  them  to  remove.  If 
they  were  not  removed,  it  might  have  "very  pernicious  effects  on  His 
Majesty's  interests  with  the  Indians."  -  Board  to  Pitt,  April  28,  1758,  in 
C.O.  5,  673,  pp.  44,  45. 


BOUNDARIES,  TRADE,  INDIAN  AFFAIRS       333 

Board  was  at  the  very  lowest  point  to  which  it  ever 
sank,  but  soon  after  the  appointment  of  Halifax  it 
was  called  upon  to  adjust  the  complicated  accounts, 
which  the  northern  colonies  had  presented  as  a  result 
of  the  attempted  invasion  of  Canada; 779  which  work 
properly  belonged  to  the  treasury,  but  the  necessary 
information  for  an  equitable  settlement  of  the  claims 
was  in  the  plantation  office.  In  the  French  and  In 
dian  War  the  Board  was  frequently  called  upon  to 
distribute  subsidies  which  had  already  been  granted, 
and  to  prepare  estimates  for  future  grants.780 

It  was  during  the  administration  of  Halifax  that 
the  Board  shows  its  greatest  activity  in  matters  of  de 
fense.  The  governor  of  each  province  was  called 
upon  for  accounts  of  the  arms  and  munitions  of  war 
which  he  had  on  hand,  the  strength  and  efficiency  of 
the  militia,  and  the  troops  and  the  moneys  which  were 
furnished  for  previous  campaigns.781  In  September, 
1753,  the  Board  sent  urgent  orders  to  the  governors 
to  summon  their  assemblies  without  delay  and  prevail 
upon  them  to  appropriate  funds  to  buy  presents  for 
the  Six  Nations.  The  attempts  of  the  Board  to  effect 
some  form  of  union  during  the  year  1754  have  al 
ready  been  mentioned.  As  a  temporary  measure, 
however,  Halifax  secured  a  commission  for  Governor 
Sharpe  of  Maryland,  by  which  he  was  made  com 
mander  of  all  the  forces  to  be  raised  in  America. 

779  See  the  detailed  report  on  these  claims  which  was  made,  February 
28,  1750,  in  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  vii,  383-400. 

780  See   the  correspondence   between  the   Board   and   the   secretaries  of 
state,  in   North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  vol.   v,  805 ;   Sharpe's  Corres 
pondence,  vol.  i,  119,  220,  359;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  viii,  part  ii,  205. 

781  North    Carolina    Colonial   Records,    vol.    v,    738 ;    Sharpe's    Corres 
pondence,  vol.  i,  81,  119,   352,  359,  435;  New  Jersey  Archives,  vol.  viii, 
part  ii,  217. 


334       AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

In  the  meantime  the  Board  had  been  busily  en 
gaged  supplying  ordnance  and  military  stores  for 
such  of  the  colonies  as  were  in  urgent  need  of  them.782 
The  question  of  providing  for  the  safety  of  the  fron 
tiers  was  a  pressing  one,  and  when  Braddock  was 
sent  over  with  a  small  army,  the  Board  proposed  that 
he  should  prepare  a  general  scheme  for  defense.783 
In  order  that  he  might  have  all  the  information  pos 
sible,  the  Board  called  upon  each  governor  to  state 
what  forces  he  would  need  for  his  own  protection  and 
what  fortifications  should  be  erected  on  the  frontiers 
of  his  province.784  As  the  war  went  on,  the  Board  se 
cured  the  information  and  prepared  many  of  the  esti 
mates  for  the  operations  of  each  succeeding  year.  It 
also  passed  upon  the  claims  of  the  various  provinces 
for  pecuniary  aid,785  and  did  all  it  possibly  could  to 
urge  the  colonies  to  exert  their  best  efforts  to  make 
the  war  a  success. 

The  most  cherished  administrative  plans  of  the 
Board  were  sacrificed  in  the  interests  of  the  war;  the 
plans  for  a  fixed  civil  list  were  abandoned,  and  the 
colonies  were  permitted  to  issue  bills  of  credit  in 

782  North  Carolina   Colonial  Records,  vol.  v,  399-400. 

783  «\ye   submit   to  you   whether   it  may   not  be   proper  that   General 
Braddock  should  be  directed  forthwith  to  consider  and  report  his  opinion  in 
what  manner  the  frontiers  may  be  best  defended ;  what  number  of  forts  it 
will  be  necessary  to  erect ;  of  what  size  and  strength ;   where  those  forts 
should  be  situated;  what  number  of  regular  troops  it  will  be  necessary  to 
have  constantly  kept  up  in  America  for  garrisoning  them  and  for  the  other 
necessary  services;  how  these  troops  should  be  distributed  and  where  sta 
tioned."  —  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  vi,  960-961. 

784  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  vi,  961. 

785  January  3,  1757,  Pitt  referred  a  number  of  memorials  from  Virginia 
and  the  Carolinas  to  the  Board,  and  asked  that  body  to  advise  him  whether 
or  not  he  should  ask  Parliament  to  appropriate  money  to  repay  them  and 
to    encourage   them    for    the    future.     Extract    from    the   Board   of   Trade 
Journal,  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  vol.  v,  805-806. 


BOUNDARIES,  TRADE,  INDIAN  AFFAIRS      335 

practically  their  own  way.  Possible  disputes  between 
the  governors  and  the  assemblies  were  kept  in  abey 
ance,  and  the  former  were  instructed  to  do  all  they 
could  to  avoid  antagonizing  the  lower  house  of  the 
legislature.  The  settlement  of  boundary  disputes  was 
postponed  and  attempts  made  to  secure  a  tem 
porary  agreement  which  should  continue  till  the  war 
was  over.  In  a  word,  the  Board  exerted  itself  to  the 
utmost  to  secure  concerted  action  on  the  part  of  the 
colonies.  The  quotas  of  men  which  each  province 
should  furnish  for  the  general  defense  were  arranged 
by  common  agreement  in  America,  or  by  the  Board 
after  consulting  with  colonial  agents  and  the  military 
officers,  they  were  then  forwarded  to  the  governors 
and  usually  complied  with  by  the  assemblies. 

Even  as  important  a  measure  as  an  embargo  was 
laid  by  a  circular  letter  sent  out  by  the  Board  in  Oc 
tober,  1756,  which  directed  the  governors  to  stop  all 
vessels  laden  with  provisions,  unless  they  were  bound 
for  some  port  in  the  British  colonies;  in  which  case, 
the  masters  had  to  give  bond  that  they  would  not  take 
their  cargoes  into  a  French  port  and  sell  the  provi 
sions  to  the  enemy.786  A  few  months  later  this  order 
was  modified  by  directions  from  Secretary  Holder- 
ness  not  to  apply  the  embargo  to  provision  ships  bound 
for  England.787  The  above  incident,  however,  illus 
trates  the  important  part  which  the  Board  of  Trade 
took  in  the  actual  execution  of  measures  for  colonial 
defense. 

786  Circular  letter  from  the  Board,  in  New  York  Colonial  Documents, 
vol.  vi,  162. 

787  Circular  letter  from  Holderness,  in  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records, 
vol.  v,  756. 


336        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

Indian  Relations 
/ 

The  problems  presented  by  the  presence  of  strong 

Indian  tribes  on  the  frontiers  were  closely  connected 
with  the  plans  for  defense.  The  Board  inherited  its 
Indian  policy  from  the  old  Committee  of  the  Privy 
Council,  and  for  many  years  it  shows  very  slight 
changes.  In  its  general  outline  the  policy  of  the 
Board  embraced  three  objects:  to  preserve  the  al 
liance  with  the  Six  Nations  as  a  protection  against  the 
French  and  with  the  southwestern  Indians  as  a  bar 
rier  to  the  Spanish;  to  pit  one  group  of  Indians 
against  another;  and  to  preserve  and  develop  the  fur 
trade. 

I  The  method  used  to  secure  the  first  of  these  was  to 
give  the  Indians  presents  from  time  to  time,  and  the 
Board  sent  over  large  quantities  of  goods  for  this  pur 
pose.  The  Indians  expected  these  presents  regularly, 
but  they  were  not  given  to  the  Iroquois  on  a  large  scale 
except  in  case  of  war,  the  arrival  of  a  new  governor, 
or  the  accession  of  a  sovereign.  On  these  occasions 
the  Indians  received  presents  amounting  to  hundreds 
of  pounds,  and  the  Board  looked  upon  the  outlay  as 
one  of  the  legitimate  charges  upon  the  crown.  The 
assemblies  adopted  the  same  policy  and  added  to  the 
sums  sent  over  from  England  for  the  purchase  of 
goods. 

The  irregularity  in  sending  these  gifts  sometimes 
strained  the  relations  with  the  Indians,  and  in  its 
report  of  1721  the  Board  advised  that  regular  sums 
should  be  set  aside  for  this  charge,  instead  of  occa 
sionally  taking  the  necessary  funds  from  the  already 
overburdened  civil  list.  In  this  way  the  Indians 


BOUNDARIES,  TRADE,  INDIAN  AFFAIRS      337 

could  also  be  kept  more  constantly  in  the  English 
interest.788 

The  friendship  of  the  southern  Indians  was  culti 
vated  even  more  assiduously  than  was  that  of  the 
northern  ones,  and  presents  in  large  quantities  were 
regularly  given  to  the  Indians  on  the  borders  of  South 
Carolina  and  Georgia.  From  1731  to  1748  these 
were  paid  for  out  of  the  expense  money  allowed  for 
the  soldiers  stationed  in  those  colonies,  and  according 
to  Crockatt,  the  agent  for  South  Carolina  in  1751, 
amounted  to  £7,000  or  £8,000  annually.789  This 
charge  did  not  appear  as  a  separate  item,  consequent 
ly  the  question  of  the  advisability  of  making  the 
grants  from  year  to  year  did  not  come  before  the 
Board.  From  1748  on,  however,  requests  for  money 
for  Indian  presents  were  regularly  presented,  and,  on 
the  advice  of  the  Board,  £3,000  were  regularly  ex 
pended  for  this  purpose.790 

The  Board  also  had  plans  for  uniting  the  Six  Na 
tions  more  permanently  to  the  British  interest  by 
erecting  forts  among  them  and  by  supplying  them 
with  missionaries.  The  latter  plan  was  not  carried 
out  with  sufficient  energy  to  make  it  successful,  as  the 

788  Representation  on  the  trade  conditions  in  the  plantations,  September 
8,  1721,  in  C.O.  324,  10,  p.  413. 

789  According  to  Crockatt  these  presents  were  at  first  paid  for  out  of 
the  sum  granted  by  Parliament  to  the  trustees  of  Georgia,  and  afterwards 
charged  "to  Extraordinaries"  in  the  expense  accounts  of  the  soldiers.     See: 
C.O.  5,  385,  no.  180. 

790  Colonel   Vanderdusen   stated  to  the  Board,   May  25,   1748,  that  the 
government  had  granted  that  amount  for  Indian   presents.     Crockatt  also 
states  that  this  sum  had  been  paid  annually  since   1748.     The  records  of 
the  correspondence  with  Georgia  indicate  that  such  sums  were  given  each 
year.     See:   C.O.   5,   672,   pp.   52-58,  184;   Board  of  Trade  Journal,   56,  p. 
74;  63,  January  21,  1755;  64,  November  2,  1756;  66,  February  21,  1758. 


338        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

work  of  supplying  and  paying  these  missionaries  was 
left  to  the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel, 
and  consequently  the  ministers  were  not  sufficiently 
well  supported  to  induce  able  men  to  enter  the  field.791 
Another  great  obstacle  to  the  success  of  the  plan  was 
the  language  difficulty,  which  few  ministers  were  able 
to  surmount.  Supplying  the  Indians  with  black 
smiths  and  other  artificers  was  a  more  practical  means 
of  securing  their  friendship  and  became  of  growing 
importance  in  the  later  measures  proposed  by  the 
Board. 

The  colonies  were  left  pretty  much  to  themselves 
in  directing  their  relations  with  the  Indians,  except 
so  far  as  they  might  be  influenced  by  the  letters  which 
were  written  to  the  governors.  Robert  Livingston 
had  been  sent  over  as  Indian  commissioner,  but  his 
duties  were  so  poorly  defined  that  he  never  exerted  a 
directing  influence  over  the  affairs  of  the  Six  Nations. 
The  Board,  however,  was  careful  not  to  permit  any 
action  which  might  alienate  the  Indians.  This  atti 
tude  is  seen  in  its  treatment  of  the  claims  of  the  Mohe- 
gan  Indians  and  its  refusal  to  grant  a  tract  of  land  in 
the  Mohawk  country  until  it  knew  whether  the  In 
dians  were  seated  on  any  part  of  it.792 

The  whole  treatment  of  Indian  affairs  was  without 
any  clearly  defined  general  plan  and  was  dictated  by 
the  exigencies  of  the  moment  until  the  administra 
tion  of  Halifax.  During  the  war  from  1744  to  1748 
William  Johnson  had  been  appointed  colonel  of  the 
Six  Nations  and  supplied  with  large  sums  of  money 
to  be  expended  upon  them.  Consequently  he  ac- 

791  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iv,  521,  755,  1038,  1074,  1077, 
vol.  v,  271,  278,  297,  and  passim. 

792 —  Ibid.,  iv,  203-204,  vol.  vi,  42. 


BOUNDARIES,  TRADE,  INDIAN  AFFAIRS      339 

quired  a  great  reputation  among  the  Indians;  and 
when  the  war  was  closed  and  he  was  no  longer  paid 
a  salary  and  furnished  with  money  to  be  spent  on 
them,  they  began  to  complain.  The  Board  realized 
the  importance  of  the  Indian  alliance  in  the  coming 
struggle  with  France  and  in  1753  took  steps  to  re 
dress  their  grievances.  The  conference  at  Albany  has 
been  mentioned  in  another  connection,  but  it  should 
be  remembered  that  the  purpose  of  the  meeting  was 
to  concert  affairs  with  the  Six  Nations.793 

Up  to  1753,  however,  the  main  feature  of  the 
Board's  Indian  policy  was  to  bribe  them  with  pres 
ents.  As  late  as  November  29,  1752,  we  find  it  using 
the  following  statement  in  a  letter  to  Dinwiddie: 

The  friendship  and  affection  of  the  Indians  is  certainly  of 
the  greatest  importance  to  the  security  and  advantage  of  the 
colonies,  and  we  are  sensible  that  the  principal,  if  not  the 
only,  means  of  gaining  and  preserving  that  affection  is  by 
making  them  annual  presents,  by  taking  care  that  those  pres 
ents  are  properly  and  honestly  applied  to  the  service  by  a  re 
ligious  observance  of  our  publick  engagements,  and  a  fair  and 
upright  conduct  in  all  the  commercial  dealings  of  those  who 
traffick  with  them.794 

When  reports  came  of  Indian  attacks  upon  the  Vir 
ginia  settlers  beyond  the  mountains,  it  advised  Secre- 

793  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  vi,  800;  New  Jersey  Archives, 
vol.  viii,  part  i,  156. 

There  is  an  intimation  in  a  letter  of  the  Board  to  Governor  Dinwiddie 
that  it  had  hopes  that  some  general  plan  of  union  might  be  formed  at  this 
meeting.  "It  might  have  afforded  an  opportunity  of  concerting  measures, 
and  proposing  some  general  plan  for  a  mutual  union,  and  concert  for  the 
general  security  and  defense  of  the  whole."  —  Board  to  Dinwiddie,  July  4, 
1754,  in  C.O.  5,  1367,  pp.  105-106. 

794  C.O.  5,  1366,  p.  577.     This  letter  goes  on  to  say  that  it  was  by  such 
measures   as  these  that  the   French   had   won  the   Indians   away   from   the 
English,  and  it  was  only  by  similar  means  that  they  could  be  again  secured. 


340        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

tary  of  State  Holderness  that  one  thousand  pounds 
should  be  granted  to  the  Twightwees*  and  every  ef 
fort  made  to  win  them  over  to  the  English  cause,  as 
they  were  the  most  powerful  tribe  in  that  section  and 
so  long  as  they  were  friendly  the  frontier  was  se 


cure.795 


The  instructions  which  were  sent  to  Governor  Os- 
born  in  September,  1753,  indicate  that  the  Board  was 
beginning  to  adopt  a  saner  Indian  policy;  he  was  to 
summon  the  assembly  at  once  and  urge  them  to  appro 
priate  money  for  presents  to  the  Six  Nations.  Sim 
ilar  letters  were  sent  to  the  governors  of  the  other 
colonies  and  presents  were  also  sent  from  England. 
So  far  the  policy  is  that  which  had  been  followed  for 
years,  except  that  it  was  a  little  more  elaborate.  The 
instruction  regarding  future  purchases  of  lands,  how 
ever,  was  new.  He  was  to  permit  no  more  purchases 
of  lands  by  private  individuals,  "but  when  the  In 
dians  are  disposed  to  sell  any  of  their  lands  the  pur 
chase  ought  to  be  made  in  his  Majesty's  name  and  at 
the  publick  charge."  This  doctrine  was  not  unknown 
in  America  and  was  one  of  the  measures  proposed  at 
the  Albany  Congress  for  the  better  regulation  of  In 
dian  affairs.796 

General  Braddock  had  reappointed  Sir  William 
Johnson  as  sole  superintendent  of  the  Six  Nations, 
with  unlimited  credit  for  such  expenditures  as  he 
needed; 797  but  in  a  few  months  Johnson  and  General 

*  The  Twightwees  are  more  commonly  known  as  Miamis,  but  the 
former  name  is  the  one  regularly  used  by  the  English. 

795  Report  on  the  Indian  situation,  March  16,  1753,  in  C.O.  5,  1367,  p.  25. 

796  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  vi,  888 ;  Pennsylvania  Colonial 
Records,  vol.  vi,  59. 

797  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  vi,  961. 


BOUNDARIES,  TRADE,  INDIAN  AFFAIRS      341 

Shirley  clashed,  and  the  former  threatened  to  resign 
unless  he  was  made  independent  of  the  latter's  con 
trol.  In  the  meantime  the  Board  had  decided  to  give 
Johnson  a  commission  from  the  crown,  "with  such 
salary  and  allowance  to  be  paid  by  the  commander- 
in-chief  of  His  Majesty's  forces  in  America  as  to 
His  Majesty  shall  appear  most  just  and  reasona 
ble."  798  From  this  time  (1756)  on  Johnson  retained 
his  position,  and  the  Board  regularly  consulted  him 
on  all  questions  of  Indian  policy.  At  the  same  time 
that  Johnson  was  appointed  agent  for  the  northern 
colonies,  Edmund  Atkins  was  appointed  for  the 
southern  colonies,799  and  the  Board  thus  adopted  the 
plan  of  regulating  Indian  affairs  by  commissioners 
appointed  by  itself  and  paid  by  the  crown.800 

The  many  frauds  practiced  upon  the  Indians  by 
the  traders  and  their  lawless  conduct  had  long  been 
a  prolific  source  of  trouble.  Each  colony  had  made 
its  own  regulations,  no  two  were  alike,  and  frauds 
forbidden  by  the  laws  of  one  were  tolerated  by  those 
of  its  neighbors.  The  Board  had  contributed  to  this 
condition  by  its  refusal  to  permit  the  colonies  to  re 
strict  the  Indian  trade  by  law,  and  by  its  insistence 
that  such  trade  should  be  free  and  open  to  every 
British  subject  who  cared  to  engage  in  it. 

One  avowed  object  in  appointing  the  Indian  agents 
in  1756  was  to  secure  definite  information  upon  which 
a  general  plan  for  the  control  of  the  Indian  trade 

798  Representation   of   the   Board,    February    17,    1756.     A    letter   of   the 
same  date  to  Governor   Hardy  announces   that  the   appointment  had  been 
made.     New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  vii,  35,  37. 

799  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  64,  May  13,  1756. 

800  The  salary  of  Johnson  was  six  hundred  pounds  per  year.     See:  C.O. 
324,  17,  pp.  57-59. 


342        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

could  be  framed.  In  1757,  Governor  Lyttelton  was 
informed  that,  although  the  regulations  lately  formed 
in  that  colony  for  the  Indian  trade  were  very  proper 
and  desirable,  any  measure  of  a  single  province, 

However  proper  in  itself  must  be  partial  and  local,  and  prob 
ably  will  be  counteracted  by  the  measures  of  another  prov 
ince,  the  people  of  which  may  carry  on  a  trade  with  the  same 
Indians.  We  are  of  opinion  that  the  only  effectual  method 
of  conducting  Indian  affairs  will  be  to  establish  one  general 
system  under  the  sole  direction  of  the  crown  and  its  offi 
cers  .  .  .  and  we  hope  soon  to  be  enabled  ...  to 
enter  upon  the  consideration  of  such  a  plan;  at  present  we 
have  very  imperfect  information  upon  almost  every  point 
necessary  to  form  a  proper  judgment.801 

Thus  questions  of  defense  were  forcing  the  Board  to 
conclude  that  the  home  government  should  assume 
full  control  over  trade  among  the  Indians,  that  the 
operations  of  unscrupulous  traders  could  be  regulated 
in  no  other  way;  and  until  this  wras  done,  the  frontier 
might  be  endangered  at  any  moment  by  the  wrongs 
done  the  Indians  by  irresponsible  individuals. 

The  war  had  scarcely  begun  before  the  Board  be 
gan  to  see  that  the  westward  movement  which  it  had 
steadily  favored  for  so  many  years  was  in  danger  of 
alienating  the  Indian  allies.  Pennsylvania  had  pro 
posed  bounty  lands  for  the  officers  and  men  who  vol 
unteered  from  that  colony,  such  lands  to  be  located 
in  the  western  part  of  the  province.  As  some  of  the 
lands  lay  within  the  region  claimed  by  the  Iroquois 
under  their  treaty  of  1726,  the  Pennsylvania  authori- 

801  Board  to  Governor  Lyttelton,  of  South  Carolina,  November  9,  1757, 
in  C.O.  5,  403,  pp.  200-203.  The  letter  concludes  with  the  statement  that 
there  was  no  desire  to  disparage  the  action  of  the  assembly  in  passing  the 
law,  and  that  the  Board  would  be  very  glad  to  see  it  carried  into  execution 
DS  a  temporary  measure. 


BOUNDARIES,  TRADE,  INDIAN  AFFAIRS      343 

ties  had  been  careful  to  secure  permission  from  the 
Indians  for  the  proposed  settlements.  The  Board, 
however,  entered  the  most  emphatic  objection  to  any 
such  grants,  on  the  ground  that  they  were  contrary 
to  the  treaty  of  1726,  that  the  Indians  insisted  they 
would  never  give  up  their  lands,  that  there  was  seri 
ous  danger  of  arousing  suspicions  as  to  the  good  faith 
of  the  English,  and  that  there  was  plenty  of  land 
within  the  province  for  such  purposes  without  enter 
ing  the  Indian  country.802  Here  was  a  new  policy.  A 
province  was  forbidden  to  make  grants  of  land  with 
in  its  own  undisputed  boundaries,  if  such  lands  were 
included  in  an  Indian  reservation  created  by  treaty. 
In  order  to  lessen  the  danger  of  losing  the  support 
of  the  Indians  in  the  struggle  for  the  continent,  the 
Board  set  to  work  to  remove  all  just  grounds  for  com 
plaint  on  their  part;  consequently,  early  in  1756,  Gov 
ernor  Hardy  of  New  York  and  Chief  Justice  De- 
Lancey  were  instructed  to  secure  a  law  breaking  the 
exorbitant  grants  of  lands  in  the  Mohawk  country.803 
The  fact  that  DeLancey  was  appealed  to  shows  that 
the  Board  recognized  the  difficulty  which  would  be 
experienced  in  securing  the  desired  law.  The  diffi 
culties  were  even  greater  than  it  realized;  but  as 
Johnson  insisted  that  the  chief  complaint  of  the  In 
dians  was  against  the  encroachments  of  the  whites, 

802  Representation  on  land  grants  in  Pennsylvania,  December  n,  1755, 
in  C.O.  5,  1295,  pp.  185-187.     The  paper  concludes:    Therefore  we  are  of 
opinion  that  at  any  time,  but  more  particularly  at  present,  when  we  ought 
cautiously  to  avoid  giving  the  least  cause  for  jealousy  or  distrust  to  the 
Indians,   and  religiously  observe  engagements  with  them,  it  would  not  be 
advisable  to  attempt  any  settlement  in  the  lands,  which  by  the  deed  of  1726 
are  given  by  them  to  Your  Majesty  to  protect  for  their  use. 

803  Letters   of  the   Board,   in    New   York    Colonial  Documents,   vol.  vii, 
77-79- 


344        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

it  continued  to  insist  that  the  law  should  be  passed. 
The  assembly  refused  to  comply,  and  in  1764  the 
Board  sent  a  positive  order  to  Governor  Golden  again 
to  lay  the  demand  before  that  body,  and  if  the  law 
were  not  passed,  it  threatened  to  apply  to  Parlia 


ment.804 


Complaints  of  trouble  between  whites  and  Indians 
were  coming  in  from  other  sources,  and  as  Johnson 
had  reported  the  Indians  as  considerably  disaffected, 
the  Board  became  very  conservative  in  approving 
land  grants.  It  had  forbidden  private  purchases  of 
the  Indians,  but  even  those  made  by  the  provincial 
authorities  were  in  danger  of  becoming  troublesome. 
In  1759,  in  a  report  on  the  dispute  between  Pennsyl 
vania  and  the  Indians  over  lands  on  the  Delaware, 
it  informed  the  Council  that  the  "extensive  purchases 
of  land,  made  not  only  by  the  proprietaries  of  Penn 
sylvania  but  in  other  governments  bordering  on  the 
Indian  country,  have  long  since  occasioned  disgusts 
and  suspicions  of  injury  in  the  minds  of  the  Indians," 
and  that  this  had  been  the  chief  cause  of  their  defec 
tion  to  the  French  and  the  hostilities  committed  by 
them  on  the  frontiers.805  If  these  statements  were 
true,  the  Board  would  have  to  solve  a  new  problem 
of  defense,  and  evolve  an  Indian  policy  different  from 
that  which  had  been  followed  during  the  last  half- 
century. 

804  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  vii,  377,  633,  673-674. 

805  Report  on  Franklin's  petition  relative  to  the  dispute  with  the  Dela 
ware  Indians,  June  i,  1759,  in  C.O.  5,  1295,  pp.  259-260. 

In  spite  of  the  objections  of  the  Board,  settlers  continued  to  enter  the 
Wyoming  Valley.  The  colonial  officials  made  a  pretense,  at  least,  of  pre 
venting  such  encroachments,  but  without  much  effect.  April  27,  1763,  the 
Board  advised  that  the  same  steps  to  remove  the  settlers  should  be  taken 


BOUNDARIES,  TRADE,  INDIAN  AFFAIRS       345 

The  success  of  the  English  in  the  war  had  aroused 
some  apprehension  on  the  part  of  the  Indians  that 
their  lands  were  to  be  taken  from  them.  These  fears 
were  increased  by  the  grants  in  the  Mohawk  country 
and  many  new  ones  which  were  being  made  in  the 
Ohio  country.  The  Board  early  saw  that  these  would 
alienate  the  Indians  and  might  bring  on  a  general 
uprising  against  the  frontier  settlements.  Governor 
Fauquier  of  Virginia  had  informed  the  Board  that 
the  settlers  on  the  Green  Briar  and  the  Kanawha  were 
returning  to  their  settlements.  He  was  told  in  turn, 
that  while  the  success  of  the  war  was  assured, 

The  difficulties  arising  from  the  claims  of  the  Indians  and 
their  jealousy  of  encroachments  exists  in  full  force;  and  what 
ever  may  in  any  degree  tend  to  alarm  their  suspicions  and 
disappoint  their  hopes  of  the  intention  on  our  part  to  redress 
past  and  prevent  future  abuses,  cannot  fail  of  being  attended 
with  fatal  consequences. 

Hence  if  any  Indians  claimed  the  lands  in  that  re 
gion,  it  would  be  very  imprudent  to  encourage  any 
new  settlements ;  but  if  there  was  no  difficulty  of  that 
kind,  the  settlements  might  continue,  as  "they  would 
prove  very  valuable  and  be  greatly  for  the  benefit 
and  security  of  the  colony."  The  governor  was  or 
dered  not  to  take  any  further  steps  in  the  matter,  until 
he  had  informed  the  Board  of  any  Indian  claims  in 
that  part  of  the  country  and  received  its  further  or 
ders.806 

as  were  used  in  the  case  of  settlements  south  of  the  Altamaha.  Accord 
ingly  it  proposed  that  instructions  should  be  sent  to  the  governors  of 
Pennsylvania  and  Connecticut  to  appoint  commissioners  who  should  go  to 
the  region  and  send  the  settlers  away.  See:  Representation  of  the  Board, 
January  14,  1763,  in  C.O.  5,  1296,  pp.  13,  16-17,  20-21. 

806  Board  to  Fauquier,  February  17,  1761,  in  C.O.  5,  1368,  pp.  12-15. 


346        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 
Early  in  1761,  it  advised  the  king  that, 

In  this  situation  the  granting  lands  hitherto  unsettled  and 
establishing  colonies  upon  the  frontiers  before  the  claims  of 
the  Indians  are  ascertained  appears  to  be  a  measure  of  the 
most  dangerous  tendency,  and  is  more  particularly  so  in  the 
present  case,  as  these  settlements  now  proposed  to  be  made, 
especially  those  upon  the  Mohawk  River  are  in  that  part  of 
the  country  of  the  possession  of  which  the  Indians  are  the  most 
jealous  having  at  different  times  expressed  in  the  strongest 
terms  their  resolution  to  oppose  all  settlements  thereon  as  a 
manifest  violation  of  their  rights.807 

As  a  result  of  this  representation,  the  Board  was 
ordered  to  prepare  additional  instructions  to  the  gov 
ernors  on  the  question  of  new  land  grants,  which  were 
sent  out  before  the  close  of  the  year.  These  instruc 
tions  forbade  each  governor 

Upon  any  pretence  whatever  upon  pain  of  our  highest  dis 
pleasure  and  of  being  forthwith  removed  from  his  office  [is 
suing]  any  grant  or  grants  to  any  persons  whatever  of  any 
lands  within  or  adjacent  to  the  territories  possessed  or  occu 
pied  by  the  said  Indians  or  the  property  possession  of  which 
has  at  any  time  been  reserved  to  or  claimed  by  them. 

Here  was  a  distinct  announcement  of  a  policy  to  rec 
ognize  certain  tracts  as  Indian  reservations  which 
should  be  protected  from  the  encroachments  of  set 
tlers.  The  governors  were  also  instructed  to  issue  a 
proclamation  at  once  in  the  king's  name 

Strictly  enjoining  and  requiring  all  persons  whatever  who 
may  either  wilfully  or  inadvertently  have  seated  themselves 
on  any  lands  so  reserved  to  or  claimed  by  the  said  In 
dians  .  .  .  forthwith  to  remove  therefrom.808 

807  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  vii,  473. 

808  Instructions  to  the  governors  of  Nova  Scotia,  New  Hampshire,  New 
York,  Virginia,  North  Carolina,   South  Carolina,   and  Georgia,  December 
2,  1761,  in  C.O.  324,  17,  pp.  164-170. 


BOUNDARIES,  TRADE,  INDIAN  AFFAIRS       347 

They  were  also  to  prosecute  all  persons  who  should 
have  secured  any  titles  to  such  lands  by  fraud,  and 
future  purchases  of  Indian  lands  were  to  be  made 
only  by  persons  who  had  secured  licenses  for  that  pur 
pose,  which  were  to  be  obtained  by  application  to  the 
Board.809 

The  conclusion  of  the  treaty  of  Paris  placed  the 
affairs  of  all  the  Indians  of  the  greater  portion  of  the 
continent  of  America  in  the  hands  of  the  Board  of 
Trade,  and  that  body  began  to  realize  the  task  which 
was  before  it.  The  ministry  was  anxious  to  have  the 
government's  policy  in  the  western  country  deter 
mined  at  once,  as  the  discontent  of  the  Indians  was 
known  to  be  serious.  The  shadow  of  Pontiac's  con 
spiracy  already  hung  over  the  northern  provinces. 
The  root  of  the  difficulty  was  the  dispute  as  to  what 
was  Indian  land  and  what  was  not.  Johnson  and 
other  officers  in  America  advocated  the  adoption  of  a 
boundary  line  between  the  colonies  and  the  Indians  on 
the  west,  and  the  prohibition  of  settlements  beyond 
that  line.810  The  Board  was  already  committed  to  the 
policy  of  respecting  the  claims  of  the  Indians  and 
strictly  forbidding  encroachments  by  the  whites,  con 
sequently  it  was  led  to  believe  that  such  a  line  was  the 

809  Cf.   the    royal    proclamation    concerning   America.        Several    of    its 
provisions   are   identical   with  the   instructions  of  1761.     Annual  Register, 
1763,  pp.  208-213. 

810  See  the  letters  of  Johnson  and  Croghan  in  New  York  Colonial  Docu 
ments,   vol.  vii,   560,   578,   602-607.     These  letters  do  not  appear  to  have 
reached  the  Board  until   after  die  boundary  line  had  been  decided  upon, 
nor  is  there  internal  evidence  that  they  knew,  when  the  letters  were  written, 
that  the  Board  had  committed  itself  to  such  a  policy.     Croghan's  undated 
letter  proposes  a  natural  boundary,  and  that  is  what  was  adopted  in  the 
proclamation.     Did  he  suggest  the  plan  while   Shelburne  was  making  up 
his  mind  ? 


348       AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

best  way  to  give  the  Indians  immediate  satisfaction. 
Shelburne  had  scarcely  assumed  control  of  the  planta 
tion  office  when  he  was  called  upon  to  formulate  a  plan 
for  the  government  of  the  acquired  territory,  to  de 
cide  what  governments  should  be  established,  and 
the  military  force  necessary  for  the  protection  of  the 
region. S11  June  8,  1763,  the  Board  made  its  report, 
indicating  the  main  features  of  the  Proclamation  of 
1763.  August  5,  it  reported  particularly  upon  the 
Indian  situation,  advising  that  a  royal  proclamation 
should  immediately  be  issued,  establishing  bounds  for 
the  Indian  country  and  forbidding  all  settlements  or 
grants  within  the  limits  of  such  region,  but  at  the 
same  time  declaring  "Your  Majesty's  Intention  to 
encourage  all  such  persons  who  shall  be  inclined  to 
commence  new  settlements  from  your  old  colo 
nies."  812  Here  was  a  reasonably  plain  program:  es 
tablish  fixed  Indian  reservations,  prevent  encroach 
ments  upon  them,  and  encourage  and  control  the 
westward  movement.  The  proclamation  was  pre 
pared  and  finally  transmitted  to  Halifax  on  October 

4,  i763.813 

It  is  evident  that  the  rough  bounds  of  the  Indian 
country  included  in  this  proclamation  were  intended 
to  be  temporary.  There  does  not  appear  to  have 
been  any  idea  of  creating  a  permanent  Indian  region 

811  Shelburne   was   appointed,   April   20,    1763.     May   5,   Egremont   re 
quested  his  opinion  on  the   above  questions.     See:   Fitzmaurice,  E.  G.  P. 
Life  of  Shelburne,  vol.  i,  247-248. 

812  It  also  proposed  that  fairly  liberal  grants  of  land  should  be  given  to 
the  officers  and  soldiers  who  had  served  in  the  late  war  on  condition  that 
the}'  lived  on  the  lands  they  selected.     See:  C.O.  324,  17,  p.  270. 

813  CO.   324,    17,   pp.   273-275.     See:  Alvord,    C.   W.   "Genesis   of  the 
Proclamation  of  1763,"  Michigan  Pioneer  and  Historical  Collections  (1908), 
for  the  best  account  of  the  origin  of  this  proclamation. 


BOUNDARIES,  TRADE,  INDIAN  AFFAIRS      349 

in  the  interior  of  the  continent.  It  was  only  intended 
to  pacify  the  savages  and  remove  their  just  grounds 
of  complaint  by  checking  the  great  wave  of  encroach 
ing  settlements.  New  settlements  were  to  be  per 
mitted  within  the  region,  but  only  after  the  bounds  of 
the  Indian  lands  were  clearly  defined  and  their  claims 
satisfied.  As  applications  for  licenses  to  buy  lands 
from  the  Indians  had  been  ordered  transmitted  to 
England  for  the  inspection  of  the  Board,  that  body 
found  itself  in  serious  difficulty.  The  information 
at  its  command  was  wholly  inadequate  to  enable  it  to 
pass  intelligently  upon  requests  for  land  grants.  De 
cember  20,  1763,  it  recommended  that  surveyors  be 
appointed  at  once  to  survey  the  dominions  in  Amer 
ica,  and  for  this  purpose  two  departments,  a  northern 
and  a  southern,  should  be  created  with  a  surveyor- 
general  in  charge  of  each,  and  nominated  a  Captain 
Holland  for  one  of  these  positions.814 

In  the  meantime  the  Board  was  at  work  on  a  gen 
eral  plan  for  regulating  the  Indian  trade.  In  fact  it 
had  announced  as  early  as  1756  that  it  considered 
control  directly  by  the  crown  as  the  only  proper  solu 
tion.815  In  the  summer  of  1763,  Johnson,  the  other 
Indian  agent,  and  some  of  the  governors,  received 
particular  instructions  to  lay  their  ideas  on  the  sub 
ject  before  the  Board.816  They  did  this  rather  freely, 

814  Representation  of  the  Board,  in  C.O.  324,  17,  pp.  317-318. 

815  The  Board  stated  in  its  letter  to  Lyttelton  in  1757  that  one  object  in 
appointing   the   Indian    agents  was   to   secure   data   upon   which   it   could 
formulate  a  general  plan  for  the  regulation  of  Indian  affairs,  commercial 
and  political.     C.O.   5,  403,  pp.  200-203. 

816  These  instructions  were  issued,  August  5,  1763.     Those  to  Johnson 
are  in  New  York   Colonial  Documents,  vol.  vii,   535-536.     Those  to  John 
Stuart,  who  had  been  appointed  Indian  Agent  for  the  southern  section  of 
America,  are  in  C.O.  5,  404,  pp.  195-198. 


350        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

and  Johnson's  letters,  especially,  are  full  of  valuable 
suggestions.817  He  proposed  that  the  whole  matter 
should  be  placed  under  the  control  of  a  royal  com 
mission,  as  the  task  was  too  large  for  any  one  man ;  that 
carefully  trained  interpreters  should  be  provided; 
and  that  trading  should  only  be  carried  on  under 
careful  regulations.  The  plan  was  gradually  taking 
shape  in  the  fall  of  1763,  and  was  so  far  advanced  by 
October  19,  that  Halifax  informed  Amherst  that 
trade  would  be  permitted  only  at  regular  posts  and 
by  those  holding  licenses.818  At  last  it  was  completed 
and  would  have  been  presented  to  Parliament  in  the 
session  of  1763-1764  to  be  enacted  into  law;  but  as 
it  would  require  a  considerable  sum  of  money  to  put 
it  in  operation,  and  funds  were  hard  to  get.  it  was 
postponed  until  the  next  session,  in  the  hope  that 
money  might  be  available  by  that  time.819  In  the  in 
terval  it  was  submitted  to  Johnson,  Governor  Golden, 
and  other  persons  in  America  who  were  supposed  to 
be  competent  to  pass  upon  the  measure.820 

The  proposed  plan  was  so  far  in  advance  of  any 
previous  arrangement  that  it  merits  careful  consider 
ation.  It  was,  as  the  Board  said,  a  plan  for 

817  Both  his  earlier  and  later  letters  contain  valuable  information  and 
suggestions  on  this  point.     See:  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  vii. 

818  Letter  of  Halifax  to  Amherst,   in   New  York   Colonial  Documents, 
vol.  vii,   571.     This  letter  raises  the  query  whether  the   plan  which  was 
finally  proposed  was  not  largely  the  work  of  Halifax.     As  he  had  been 
at  the  head  of  the  Board  for  so  many  years,  had  been  responsible  for  the 
assertion  in  1757  that  Indian  trade  should  be  regulated  by  the  crown,  had 
no  doubt  given  the  matter  considerable  thought,  and  the  more  important 
under  clerks  and  officers  were  his  own  appointees,  it  is  more  than  prob 
able  that  he  is  the  father  of  it. 

819  Letter  of  the  Board  to  Johnson,  July  10,  1764,  in  C.O.  324,  17,  pp. 
407-421. 

820  NCW  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  vii,  634,  661,  667-670. 


BOUNDARIES,  TRADE,  INDIAN  AFFAIRS      351 

The  regulation  of  Indian  affairs  both  commercial  and  po 
litical  throughout  all  North  America  upon  one  general  sys 
tem  under  the  direction  of  officers  appointed  by  the  crown,  so 
as  to  set  aside  all  local  interfering  of  particular  provinces. 

The  continent  was  to  be  divided  into  two  depart 
ments,  each  under  the  control  of  a  superintendent,  or 
agent.  The  Ohio  River  was  selected  as  the  bound 
ary  between  the  two,  but  because  some  tribes  under 
Johnson's  control  lived  south  of  that  line,  the  Board 
decided  to  arrange  the  jurisdiction  by  tribes  and 
asked  the  agents  in  America  for  suggestions  on  that 
point.821 

All  provincial  laws  for  the  regulation  of  Indian 
affairs  were  to  be  repealed  and  the  control  centered 
in  the  superintendents  appointed  by  the  crown,  who 
were  to  have  charge  of  all  questions  of  a  political 
nature,  such  as  peace  and  war,  purchase  of  lands, 
making  of  treaties,  and  all  other  matters  which  re 
quired  general  meetings  with  the  Indians.  Each  su 
perintendent  was  to  consult  with  the  several  govern 
ors  in  his  department,  and  was  to  be  appointed  an 
extraordinary  member  of  the  council  of  each  prov 
ince.  The  Indian  agents,  however,  were  to  be  inde 
pendent  of  all  local  control,  and  no  military  officer 
could  interfere  with  the  trade  of  any  tribe  without  the 
consent  of  the  head  of  the  department  in  which  it  was 
located.  The  superintendents  were  to  be  assisted  by 
deputies,  two  for  the  southern  district  and  three  for 
the  northern,  and  in  each  of  the  tribes  of  the  southern 
district  the  crown  was  to  appoint  a  commissary,  an 
interpreter,  and  a  smith,  all  of  whom  should  be  sub- 

821  Letter  of  the  Board  to  Johnson,  July  10,  1764.  New  York  Colonial 
Documents,  vol.  vii,  634. 


352        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

ject  to  the  control  of  the  agent.  The  religious  life 
of  the  Indians  was  to  be  under  the  care  of  mission 
aries,  four  for  each  district,  who  were  to  be  appointed 
by  the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  and 
were  to  reside  where  the  superintendents  directed. 

Indian  trade  was  to  be  carefully  regulated  under 
the  inspection  and  supervision  of  the  superintendents; 
but  any  person  who  wished  to  engage  in  it  could  do 
so  by  securing  a  license  from  the  governor  of  the 
province  from  which  he  came,  the  fee  for  which  was 
only  two  shillings.  The  license  was  good  for  one 
year  and  specified  the  region  in  which  the  holder  was 
entitled  to  trade;  and  to  insure  the  observance  of  the 
laws  regulating  such  trade,  each  person  who  engaged 
in  it  was  placed  under  bond.  The  traders  were  not 
allowed  to  charge  exorbitant  prices  for  their  goods, 
but  the  value  of  each  article  was  to  be  agreed  upon 
in  advance  by  the  commissary,  the  representative  of 
the  Indians,  and  the  agent.  In  the  northern  district 
all  trade  had  to  be  carried  on  at  regular  posts,  which 
were  to  be  fortified  and  properly  garrisoned,  and  in 
both  districts  the  traders  were  forbidden  to  sell  rum 
or  rifled  guns  to  Indians.  To  protect  the  Indians 
against  the  evils  of  debts,  no  trader  was  permitted 
to  give  credit  for  a  larger  amount  than  fifty  shillings, 
and  debts  greater  than  that  could  not  be  collected  by 
law. 

The  intercourse  of  traders  with  the  Indians  re 
quired  some  well  regulated  arrangements  for  the  ad 
ministration  of  prompt  justice.  For  this  purpose  the 
agents  and  the  commissaries  at  each  post  were  em 
powered  to  act  as  justices  of  the  peace  in  both  crim 
inal  and  civil  cases,  and  the  testimony  of  the  Indians 


BOUNDARIES,  TRADE,  INDIAN  AFFAIRS      353 

was  put  on  the  same  footing  as  that  of  the  whites  in 
the  courts  of  all  the  colonies.  In  civil  cases  involv 
ing  sums  not  exceeding  ten  pounds,  an  appeal  could 
be  taken  from  the  commissary  to  the  agent  for  the 
department,  whose  decision  was  final.  Civil  cases 
which  involved  larger  sums  and  the  more  important 
criminal  cases  were  left  to  the  regularly  established 
colonial  courts. 

As  the  worst  abuses  of  which  the  Indians  com 
plained  had  arisen  from  the  sale  of  their  lands,  no 
private  person  or  corporation  was  to  be  allowed  to 
purchase  any  lands  from  the  Indians,  except  where 
such  lands  were  within  the  bounds  of  some  colony; 
and  even  in  that  case,  the  purchase  could  be  made 
only  at  a  general  meeting  presided  over  by  the  agent 
and  attended  by  the  chiefs  of  each  tribe  claiming  the 
land.  Purchases  of  lands  for  the  use  of  the  crown 
were  to  be  made  in  the  same  way,  carefully  surveyed 
in  the  presence  of  the  Indians,  and  maps  of  the  tracts 
so  purchased  were  to  be  kept  on  deposit  at  the  office 
of  the  agent.  The  agents  were  also  directed  to  use 
their  best  efforts  to  secure  a  determination  of  the 
western  boundary,  so  that  the  above  regulations  could 
be  made  effective. 

An  attempt  was  made  to  regulate  the  election  cus 
toms  among  the  Indians.  In  the  southern  district  the 
members  of  each  village  of  a  tribe  were  to  select, 
under  the  supervision  of  the  commissary,  a  chief  man. 
The  chief  men  so  chosen  were  then  to  meet  with  the 
commissary  and  select  a  chief  for  the  tribe,  who  was 
to  reside  with  the  commissary.  As  far  as  possible, 
the  same  plan  was  to  be  extended  to  the  northern 


354        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

department.822  Some  such  arrangement  seemed  nec 
essary  as  a  means  of  knowing  in  all  cases  who  was  the 
legally  chosen  chief  of  each  tribe,  otherwise  a  tribe 
might  refuse  to  be  bound  by  action  of  the  individual 
who  styled  himself  chief. 

The  Board  estimated  that  the  cost  of  the  establish 
ment  required  by  the  proposed  plan  would  amount 
to  about  twenty  thousand  pounds  annually.  This 
sum  it  proposed  to  raise  by  means  of  a  tax  upon  the 
Indian  trade,  collected  either  in  the  form  of  an  ex 
port  duty  on  furs  or  as  an  excise  tax  payable  by  each 
trader  at  the  various  posts.  The  final  determina 
tion  of  the  method  of  collection  was  to  rest  upon  the 
advice  of  the  Indian  agents  as  to  which  plan  would 
prove  the  least  burdensome  to  the  traders.823 

This  plan  met  with  the  approval  of  Johnson  and 
Governor  Golden,  although  they  suggested  a  modi 
fication  of  the  regulation  forbidding  the  sale  of  rum 
to  the  Indians.  Their  arguments  were  based  upon 
the  known  desires  of  the  Indians  for  liquor,  its  value 
as  an  article  of  trade,  and  the  additional  revenue 
which  would  be  realized  from  its  sale.824  The  Board 
endeavored  for  the  next  four  years  to  get  this  plan 
instituted  by  act  of  Parliament,  but  never  succeeded. 
Various  reasons  could  be  given  for  its  failure  on  this 
point,  but  probably  the  most  potent  ones  were  op 
position  in  the  colonies  and  the  lack  of  funds  to  fi\ 
nance  the  scheme.  Finally  in  April,  1768,  a  circular 
letter  to  the  governors  announced  that  the  whole  plan 

822  Plan  for  the  management  of  Indian  affairs,  in  New  York  Colonial 
Documents,  vol.  vii,  637,  clauses  1-13,  15-18,  23-39,  41-42. 

823  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  vii,   639. 

824  Letters  of  Johnson  and  Golden.     Ibid.,  661-666,  667-670. 


BOUNDARIES,  TRADE,  INDIAN  AFFAIRS      355 

had  been  abandoned.825  As  the  Indian  policy  after 
that  date  lies  outside  the  scope  of  this  work,  it  is  not 
necessary  to  follow  it  further. 

Notwithstanding  the  changing  personnel  of  the 
Board  of  Trade  and  the  shifting  ministries,  there  is 
a  surprising  continuity  of  policy  toward  settlements 
in  the  west.  Up  to  1754  the  Board  steadily  favored 
them  as  the  best  means  of  defense  against  the  French 
and  the  Spanish,  except  where  such  a  policy  endan 
gered  the  friendly  relations  with  very  strong  and  dan 
gerous  Indian  tribes.  The  exigencies  of  the  French 
and  Indian  War  compelled  the  Board  to  modify  its 
former  policy.  Alliances  and  combinations  among 
the  Indian  tribes  had  developed,  and  there  was  so 
much  danger  from  their  growing  hostility  to  the  ad 
vanced  English  settlements  that  westward  expansion 
was  hazardous  at  many  places  where  it  had  formerly 
been  encouraged.  After  the  expulsion  of  the  French 
and  the  acquisition  of  the  Spanish  claims  east  of  the 
Mississippi,  there  was  no  longer  need  for  the  former 
rapid  occupation  of  the  interior.  On  the  other  hand, 
Indian  tribes  which  had  formerly  been  pitted  against 
each  other,  now  tended  to  unite  for  common  purposes, 
and  thus  occupied  the  menacing  position  formerly 
held  by  the  French.  Westward  expansion  might  en 
danger  the  peace  and  safety  of  the  whole  frontier, 
where  formerly  it  was  a  means  of  defense.  Hence 
the  insistence  of  the  Board  that  Indian  claims  be 
acquired  by  recognized  authority  before  settlements 
were  made. 

The  policy  of  the  Board  not  only  shows  continuity, 

825  Pennsylvania  Colonial  Records,  vol.  ix,  552. 


356        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

it  also  shows  progress.  As  long  as  it  was  largely 
a  question  of  pitting  one  Indian  tribe  or  confederation 
against  another,  each  colony  could  easily  regulate  the 
relations  with  its  own  Indians,  with  what  assistance  it 
could  get  from  England.  But  as  the  settlements 
spread  into  the  back  country  and  flowed  together,  In 
dian  problems  became  national  instead  of  local.  The 
Board  recognized  this  change  by  limiting  purchases 
of  Indian  lands,  by  the  appointment  by  the  crown  of 
Indian  agents,  by  insisting  that  treaties  should  be 
made  under  the  supervision  of  these  officers,  and  by 
proposing  a  national  regulation  of  all  commercial 
and  trade  relations  with  the  Indians.  It  had  grad 
ually  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  the  Indian  was 
properly  the  ward  of  the  state,  and  that  it  was  neces 
sary  for  the  central  government  to  protect  him. 


RESUME 

During  the  first  seventy  years  of  its  history  the 
Board  of  Trade  had  a  somewhat  checkered  career: 
at  one  time  it  was  the  source  of  authority  for  all  ques 
tions  of  colonial  policy,  its  president  exercising  all 
the  influence  of  a  cabinet  minister;  at  another  it  was 
merely  an  advisory  body,  whose  recommendations 
were  accepted  or  rejected  as  the  secretary  of  state 
saw  fit.  Because  of  the  periods  of  impotency  and 
apparent  indifference,  the  Board  has  frequently  been 
set  down  as  an  inefficient  bureau  which  could  be  ig 
nored  as  an  essential  factor  in  colonial  history.  The 
foregoing  account  shows  that  such  is  not  the  case,  that 
for  more  than  one  half  of  the  period  under  considera 
tion  it  was  a  decidedly  active  and  influential  organ 
of  government,  and  that  even  during  the  decadent 
period  it  did  some  effective  work. 

The  Board  was  no  better  and  certainly  but  lit 
tle  worse  than  other  parts  of  the  British  govern 
ment,  and  periods  of  inefficiency  in  one  are  con 
temporary  with  similar  periods  in  the  other.  In 
each  case  the  cause  of  bad  government  must  be 
sought  in  the  personality  of  the  men  who  were  v 
responsible  for  the  conditions.  This  fact  is  most 
clearly  illustrated  in  the  history  of  the  Board  of 
Trade,  for  while  its  power  and  influence  varied 
from  time  to  time,  the  commission  usually  re- 


358        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

mained  unchanged.  The  activities  of  the  Board  were 
not  measured  by  its  commission,  but  were  dependent 
upon  the  will  of  the  secretary  of  state  for  the  Southern 
Department,  who  controlled  it.  If  he  gave  it  a  free 
hand,  it  was  a  powerful  body;  but  if  he  insisted  upon 
interfering  with  its  work  and  required  that  all  ques 
tions  of  colonial  management  should  be  referred  to 
himself  personally,  it  at  once  lost  its  influence. 

The  history  of  the  Board  of  Trade  shows  the  ef 
fects  of  the  gradual  change  which  was  taking  place  in 
the  British  government.  Created  in  1696  as  a  com 
mittee  under  the  immediate  control  of  the  crown,  it 
came  naturally  into  the  power  of  the  slowly  develop 
ing  parliamentary  executive.  During  the  ascendency 
of  Walpole  and  Newcastle,  two  men  ran  the  govern 
ment,  or  kept  others  from  running  it,  and  during  that 
time  Newcastle  absorbed  the  chief  executive  powers 
of  the  Board  of  Trade  and  himself  directed  colonial 
affairs.  Whatever  inefficiency  in  the  management  of 
the  colonies  existed  during  that  time  must  be  charged 
to  him,  and  to  him  must  be  given  the  credit  for  all 
important  colonial  policies  initiated  within  that  pe 
riod,  if  any  can  be  found. 

With  the  downfall  of  Walpole  there  came  into  pow 
er  a  new  school  of  active  and  independent  men  in  the 
House  of  Commons  who  demanded  a  share  in  con 
ducting  the  government.  The  old  centralized  par 
liamentary  executive  was  broken,  new  men  entered 
the  administration  and  with  them  the  executive  func 
tions  had  to  be  shared.  In  spite  of  the  wishes  of  New 
castle,  Halifax  was  given  the  presidency  of  the  Board 
of  Trade,  and  within  a  very  short  time  that  body  again 


RESUME  359 


came  into  its  own  because  of  the  personal  influence 
he  was  able  to  wield.  He  first  demanded  and  se 
cured  permission  for  the  Board  to  act  up  to  its  com 
mission  powers,  insisted  upon  an  extension  of  those 
powers,  compelled  his  colleagues  to  give  his  recom 
mendations  the  same  weight  as  though  they  came 
from  a  secretary  of  state,  and  finally  secured  the  pub 
lic  recognition  he  craved  by  being  admitted  to  the 
cabinet. 

In  its  relations  with  the  Privy  Council  the  Board 
was  a  bureau  of  investigation,  an  advisory  body,  and 
a  court  of  first  instance.  Through  its  correspondence 
with  colonial  officials  and  personal  consultation  with 
merchants  and  others  familiar  with  conditions  in  the 
plantations,  it  gathered  data,  learned  what  was  going 
on,  and  tried  to  discover  the  particular  needs  of  each 
province;  with  this  information  before  it,  colonial 
policies  were  mapped  out  and  orders  were  drawn  to 
carry  them  into  execution.  In  their  final  shape  these 
were  then  laid  before  the  Privy  Council  for  ratifica 
tion,  where  they  were  reviewed  just  as  were  other  gov 
ernmental  questions  before  final  action  was  taken. 

The  Privy  Council  was  developing  its  committee 
system  so  as  to  give  actual  control  of  the  government 
to  those  who  were  responsible  to  Parliament.  The 
meeting  with  the  sovereign  ceased  to  be  a  deliberative 
body,  and  all  matters  of  a  controversial  nature  or 
which  required  investigation  were  referred  to  com 
mittees,  that  is  council  meetings  to  which  the  sover 
eign  was  not  invited.  These  were  not  standing  com 
mittees  nor  committees  appointed  for  any  particular 
service,  but  all  matters  were  referred  to  what  was  in 


36o        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

reality  the  committee  of  the  whole,  consisting  of  any 
three  or  more  members  of  the  council.  Apparently, 
the  clerks  attempted  to  give  to  these  committee  meet 
ings  names  descriptive  of  the  work  done,  hence  a  most 
confusing  list  of  committees  was  created,  which  even 
trained  scholars  have  sometimes  assumed  to  be  divi 
sions  of  the  Privy  Council.  No  such  separate  divisions 
existed,  that  there  was  but  one  committee  -  that  of  the 
whole  -  during  most  of  this  period ;  that  even  the  so- 
called  "Committee  on  Appeals  from  the  Plantations" 
was  not  a  separate  and  distinct  committee,  that  it  was 
only  a  council  meeting  to  dispose  of  judicial  matters, 
and  that  it  by  no  means  limited  its  activities  to  the 
consideration  of  appeals,  but  like  all  other  committee 
meetings,  disposed  of  whatever  other  business  de 
manded  attention.  Furthermore  it  seems  clearly  es 
tablished  that  there  was  no  fixed  personnel  for  the 
various  committees  suggestive  of  an  actual  division 
of  the  work  of  the  Privy  Council,  except  so  far  as  the 
presence  of  the  chief  legal  minds  when  judicial  bus 
iness  was  transacted  may  be  construed  to  constitute 
such  a  specialization  of  duties. 

In  carrying  out  the  limited  functions  permitted  it, 
the  Board  encountered  serious  natural  difficulties, 
among  which  were:  distance  and  the  absence  of  reg 
ular  means  of  communication,  even  with  the  most 
accessible  colonies;  the  niggardliness  of  the  British 
government  in  supplying  it  with  funds,  so  that  dis 
patches  had  to  be  entrusted  to  masters  of  trading  ves 
sels  and  chance  messengers  to  save  postage;  and  last 
of  all,  lack  of  regular  means  of  communication  from 
one  colony  to  another,  causing 'delays  if  not  more 


R£SUM£  361 


serious  hazard  to  dispatches.  These  natural  difficul 
ties  were  greatly  enhanced  by  the  many  years  of  war 
fare,  which  rendered  communications  even  more  pre 
carious.  To  all  this  must  be  added  the  handicap  of 
exacting  commercial  duties  in  no  way  connected  with 
colonial  government,  but  which  absorbed  the  time  and 
energy  of  the  Board  at  critical  times.  Some  of  the 
difficulties  were  finally  overcome  by  the  Board's  se 
curing  a  regular  packet  service  for  the  mails  and  free 
postage  for  its  communications,  thus  enabling  it  to 
keep  more  closely  in  touch  with  the  colonies. 

The  most  serious  difficulty  in  colonial  government 
was  one  growing  out  of  the  gradual  revolution  which 
was  taking  place  in  the  colonies  due  to  the  rising  pow 
er  of  the  assemblies.  This  movement  had  scarcely 
begun  in  1696  when  the  Board  was  organized,  but  it 
developed  rapidly  and  was  almost  complete  by  1765. 
The  assemblies,  through  their  assumed  power  over 
what  they  chose  to  call  a  money  bill,  were  able  to 
usurp  the  chief  legislative  powers  of  the  council  by 
denying  to  that  body  the  right  to  amend  proposed  fi 
nancial  measures,  thus  rendering  it  powerless  to  as 
sist  the  governor  in  carrying  out  his  instructions.  With 
the  council  eliminated  and  with  full  control  of  the 
purse  in  their  own  hands,  the  assemblies  proceeded  to 
force  the  governors  to  sign  forbidden  legislation  and 
to  strip  them  of  their  executive  functions.  By  desig 
nating  officers  by  name  in  the  appropriation  bills  the 
assemblies  forced  the  governors  to  appoint  such  per 
sons  to  office  as  were  pleasing  to  itself,  extraordinary 
and  even  ordinary  executive  duties  were  delegated  to 
committees  of  the  lower  house,  and  finally  the  control 


362        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

of  the  military  was  assumed,  so  that  the  governors  were 
reduced  to  little  more  than  figureheads.  Instead  of 
being  dependent  upon  the  Board,  they  had  become 
dependent  upon  the  assemblies,  whose  speaker  had 
acquired  almost  the  powers  of  a  local  prime  minister. 
As  he  was  backed  by  the  majority  in  the  assembly,  the 
governor  had  to  consult  him  upon  nearly  all  measures, 
and  take  his  advice  if  he  wished  things  to  go  ahead 
smoothly  in  his  government.  This  extended  in  some 
cases  to  summoning,  proroguing,  and  dissolving  the 
,  ^  '  assembly;  hence  there  were  many  elements  tending  to 
develop  in  the  colonies  ministerial  forms  of  govern- 


"ment  patterned  strongly  after  that  in  England. 


The  Board  of  Trade  was  not  ignorant  of  the  polit- 
N:v^  ical  tendency  within  the  colonies,  nor  slow  to  recog 
nize  the  practically  unworkable  character  of  the  im 
perial  arrangement  for  governing  them.  With  un 
erring  foresight  it  picked  out  the  most  vital  defect  in 
the  constitution  and  sought  to  remedy  it  by  securing 
in  each  of  the  royal  and  proprietary  provinces  a  fixed 
civil  list  which  would  render  executive  and  judicial 
officers  independent  of  the  local  legislatures.  To 
secure  this  object  it  resorted  to  every  means  in  its  pow 
er;  instructions  to  the  governors,  threats,  reprimands 
from  the  sovereign,  and  even  appeals  to  Parliament 
were  all  used  in  vain.  The  assemblies  refused  to  be 
intimidated,  governors  could  not  starve,  wars  at  in 
opportune  times  necessitated  making  terms  with  the 
assemblies  and  allowed  them  to  increase  their  power. 
Ministers  were  too  indifferent  or  too  timid  to  supply 
the  only  other  remedy  and  establish  a  civil  list  by  act 
of  Parliament.  The  Board  had  repeatedly  demand- 


R£SUM£  363 


ed  that  such  action  be  taken,  ministers  sometimes  per 
mitted  bills  to  that  effect  to  be  introduced,  threats  of 
their  passage  were  held  over  the  colonial  assemblies, 
but  nothing  was  done  until  after  the  elimination  of 
the  French  from  the  continent.  At  last  the  ministers 
appealed  to  Parliament  and  secured  the  desired  legis 
lation  but  encountered  armed  resistance  in  the  colo 
nies. 

In  dealing  with  the  judges  the  Board  was  more 
successful.  Judges  had  at  first  been  commissioned 
only  during  the  pleasure  of  the  crown;  but  the  in 
structions  to  the  governors  were  ambiguous,  and  in 
the  course  of  time  it  became  the  custom  for  governors 
to  issue  commissions  during  good  behavior.  Under 
Halifax  the  Board  discovered  the  irregular  practice, 
changed  the  instructions,  and  when  all  commissions 
fell  vacant  on  the  death  of  George  II,  forced  the  re 
newals  to  be  made  at  the  pleasure  of  the  crown.  This 
policy  was  very  closely  connected,  with  the  at 
tempt  to  render  the  governors  more  independent  of 
local  control.  As  long  as  the  judges  were  dependent 
upon  the  assemblies  for  their  salaries,  and  held  office 
during  good  behavior,  they  were  absolutely  inde 
pendent  of  all  control  by  the  mother  country.  From 
an  imperial  point  of  view  this  was  a  serious  situation, 
especially  so  in  view  of  the  numerous  acts  of  Parlia 
ment  regulating  trade  and  navigation  which  had  to 
be  enforced  in  courts  presided  over  by  these  judges, 
and  the  provision  that  they  could  be  removed  from 
office  by  the  crown  gave  the  empire  its  only  measure 
of  protection  against  an  ignorant  or  partisan  bench. 
'The  Board  of  Trade  had  other  important  colonial 


364        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

policies;  such  as,  the  development  of  some  form  of 
military  union  for  purposes  of  defense,  the  reduction 
of  all  the  colonial  governments  to  one  type  by  the  re 
sumption  of  the  charters  and  the  proprietary  grants, 
and  the  rapid  westward  expansion  of  the  population, 
especially  on  the  French  and  Spanish  frontiers.  Its 
trade  policy  was  not  excessively  narrow,  but  was  in 
tended  to  make  the  colonies  and  the  home  country 
mutually  helpful  to  each  other  industrially.  Each 
was  to  be  a  market  and  a  source  of  supply  for  the 
other.  To  make  such  a  condition  possible  the  Board 
sought  to  engage  the  colonists  in  those  enterprises 
which  threatened  the  least  competition  with  British 
industries,  and  at  the  same  time  would  yield  ample 
returns  to  the  labor  and  capital  invested.  To  this  end 
it  favored  bounties,  drawbacks,  discriminating  tariff 
duties,  and  the  expenditure  of  money  for  popular  in 
struction  in  new  and  promising  enterprises.  The 
Board  itself  seldom  favored  direct  limitations  upon 
colonial  industries,  except  when  it  was  forced  to  do  so 
by  those  engaged  in  some  English  trade  which  ap 
peared  to  be  suffering  from  American  competition. 
The  value  of  the  colonial  market,  however,  was  never 
underrated  and  every  opportunity  was  taken  to  pro 
tect  and  expand  it,  especially  that  for  English  wool 
ens.  The  importance  of  this  last  can  hardly  be 
overrated,  and  much  of  the  naval  stores  policy  of  the 
Board  was  instigated  by  a  desire  to  extend  and  safe 
guard  the  colonial  wool  market. 
>  The  power  to  approve  or  disapprove  colonial  legis 
lation  was  the  most  important  means  of  shaping  the 
legal  relations  of  the  colonies  to  the  mother  country,  of 


RESUME  365 


securing  uniformity  of  legal  procedure,  and  of  pre 
venting  unfair  local  and  special  legislation.  In  the  ex 
ercise  of  this  power  the  Board  of  Trade  was  not  arbi 
trary  or  tyrannical,  but  acted  with  the  judicial  fairness 
of  a  court  of  first  instance.  Each  law  was  submitted  to 
a  crown  lawyer  for  his  opinion  as  to  its  legal  fitness, 
was  permitted  a  day  in  court  for  a  public  hearing  and 
argument  from  attorneys,  was  tested  by  members  of 
the  Board  as  to  its  general  fitness  from  an  administra 
tive  point  of  view,  and  was  finally  recommended  for 
approval  or  disallowance.  From  that  recommenda 
tion  an  appeal  lay  to  the  Privy  Council,  which  could 
reverse  the  action  of  the  Board,  but  seldom  did  so. 

Probably  no  part  of  our  colonial  experience  has 
had  more  permanent  results  than  this  constant  sub 
jection  of  local  laws  to  the  review  of  the  central  gov 
ernment.  The  power  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  to  declare  state  laws  unconstitutional  is 
scarcely  more  than  an  American  version  of  the  con 
stant  practice  of  the  Board  of  Trade.  Even  the 
reasons  for  the  disallowance  of  colonial  laws,  worked 
out  as  they  were  as  each  specific  case  presented  itself, 
show  a  surprising  similarity  to  the  limitations  upon 
state  legislation  today.  Prior  to  1765  the  limitatmrX 
imposed  upon  their  legislative  powers  was  not  espe 
cially  irksome  to  most  of  the  colonies,  and  was  gen 
erally  submitted  to  by  the  mass  of  the  population 
with  about  the  same  grace  that  people  today  submit 
to  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  which  are  adverse 
to  popular  laws.  In  many  cases  the  colonial  legisla 
tures  hastened  to  remedy  defective  laws  so  as  to  make 
them  conform  to  the  demands  of  the  Board,  thus  in- 


366        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

dicating  their  appreciation  of  the  value  of  the  general 
system.  The  cases  of  direct  opposition  and  evasions 
of  the  royal  veto  are  probably  greatly  overestimated 
and  their  importance  exaggerated. 

No  doubt  principles  of  government  worked  out 
under  the  administration  of  the  Board  of  Trade  have 
influenced  later  administration  in  many  ways.  The 
Indian  policy  of  the  Board  by  its  very  example  per 
sisted  for  many  years,  at  least  so  far  as  its  main  fea 
tures  are  concerned.  And  it  is  a  significant  fact  that 
when  the  new  American  government  acquired  terri 
tories,  that  is  colonies,  of  its  own,  it  did  not  place  the 
governors,  judges,  or  territorial  officers  at  the  mercy 
of  a  local  legislature,  nor  were  unlimited  financial 
powers  conferred  upon  such  legislatures,  and  all  laws 
were  subjected  to  a  review  and  possible  veto  by  the 
central  government. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

In  the  following  list  no  attempt  has  been  made  to 
compile  an  exhaustive  bibliography,  only  those 
works  being  included  which  were  directly  serviceable 
in  preparing  this  volume.  With  a  very  few  excep 
tions,  the  list  includes  no  material  not  specifically 
cited  in  the  footnotes. 

ALDEN,  GEORGE  H.  New  Governments  west  of  the  Alleghanies 
before  1780:  in  University  of  Wisconsin  Bulletin,  historical 
series,  vol.  ii,  no.  I  (Madison,  1897). 

ALVORD,  CLARENCE  W.  Genesis  of  the  Proclamation  of  1763: 
read  before  the  Michigan  Pioneer  and  Historical  Society,  De 
cember  13,  1907,  and  reprinted  from  the  Proceedings  of  that 
organization  (Lansing,  1908). 

Contains  new  material  on  the  attitude  of  important  British  officials 
toward  westward  expansion,  17601767. 

AMES,  HERMAN  V.  Pennsylvania  and  the  English  Government, 
1699-1700:  reprinted  from  the  Pennsylvania  Magazine  of  His 
tory  and  Biography  (Philadelphia,  1900). 

Contains    important    extracts    from    the    correspondence    of    Colonel 
Robert  Quary. 

ANDREWS,  CHARLES  McL.  American  Colonial  History,  1690- 
1750:  in  American  Historical  Association  Report  for  1898 
(Washington,  1899). 

This  article  suggested  some  phases  of  the  present  investigation. 
•^•^  Colonial  Self-government,   1652-1689   (New  York,   1904). 
Has  an  excellent  summary  of  colonial  administration  prior  to  1696, 
written  largely  from  the  records  in  London.     It  also  has  a  very  good 
bibliography  of  the  earlier   period  of  colonial   government. 

British  Committees,  Commissions,  and  Councils  of  Trade  and 

Plantations,  1622-1675:  in  Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies 


368        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

in  Historical  and  Political  Science  (Baltimore,  1908),  vol.  xxvi, 
nos.  1-3. 

This  is  by  far  the  most  accurate  and  definite  account  extant  of  the 
growth  of  organs  of  imperial  control  during  the  seventeenth  century. 
It  also  contains  an  excellent  account  of  the  evolution  of  instructions  to 
royal  governors  during  that  period. 

ANDREWS,  CHARLES  McL.  List  of  the  Journals  and  Acts  of  the 
Councils  and  Assemblies  of  the  Thirteen  Original  Colonies  and 
the  Floridas  in  America,  preserved  in  the  Public  Record  Office, 
London:  American  Historical  Association's  Public  Archives 
Commission  in  Report  for  1908,  vol.  i,  Appendix  D  (Wash 
ington,  1909). 

An  invaluable  finding  list  for  those  who  have  occasion  to  use  the 
London  manuscripts.  Ultimately  this  list  will  be  completed  for  all  the 
manuscripts  dealing  with  colonial  history. 

BASSETT,  JOHN  S.  Constitutional  Beginnings  of  North  Carolina, 
1663-1729:  in  Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies  in  Historical 
and  Political  Science  (Baltimore,  1894),  ser-  xn>  n°-  3- 

BEER,  GEORGE  L.  Commercial  Policy  of  England  toward  the 
American  Colonies :  in  Columbia  University  Studies  in  History, 
etc.  (New  York,  1893),  vol.  iii,  no.  2. 

British  Colonial  Policy,  1754-1765  (New  York,  1907). 

Written  entirely  from  original  material,  drawn  very  largely  from 
the  manuscripts  in  the  Public  Record  Office  in  London,  this  volume  has 
rendered  all  other  accounts  of  the  commercial  relations  of  the  American 
colonies  to  the  mother  country  obsolete  for  the  period  it  covers.  It  is 
somewhat  deficient  in  its  account  of  political  relations  and  institutions. 

BOARD  OF  TRADE  Journal.  See  Great  Britain,  Board  of  Trade 
Papers. 

BRITISH  MUSEUM.  Additional  Manuscripts,  32,692-32,884  (Lon 
don). 

These  comprise  a  portion  of  the  voluminous  Newcastle  correspondence 
and  contain  the  letters  which  passed  between  Newcastle  and  Halifax, 
also  some  of  the  correspondence  between  Bedford  and  Halifax.  Many 
of  the  letters  are  of  great  historical  value.  Only  the  originals  in 
London  were  used.  Transcripts  are  to  be  found  in  the  Library  of 
Congress  at  Washington. 

BURKE,  SIR  BERNARD.  Genealogical  and  Heraldic  Dictionary  of 
the  Peerage  and  Baronetage  (London,  1899). 

BURNET,  GILBERT.  History  of  his  own  Time  (London,  1857), 
2  vols. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  369 


Is   valuable   for   its    account   of  the   organization  of  the   Board   of 

Trade  and  its  estimate  of  men. 
CARROLL,  B.  R.     Historical  collections  of  South  Carolina  (New 

York,  1836),  2  vols. 
CHALMERS,  GEORGE.     Introduction  to  the  History  of  the  Revolt 

of  the  American  Colonies  (Boston,  1845),  2  vols. 

A  strongly  biased   account    of    the    rising    power    of    the    colonial 

assemblies,   but   very  valuable    for   the    extracts   which   it   contains   of 

documents  not  elsewhere  in  print.     Needs  to  be  used  with  caution. 
Opinions  of  eminent  Lawyers  on  various  points  of  English 

Jurisprudence  (Burlington,  Va.,  1858),  2  vols. 

Largely  devoted  to  the  legal  opinions  of  the  crown  lawyers  on  the 

laws  enacted  by  the  various  colonies. 
CHANNING,  EDWARD.     Century  of  Colonial  History,  1660-1760, 

vol.  ii  of  History  of  the  United  States  (New  York,  1908),  8 

vols. 

Has  several  pages  devoted  to  a  description  of  the  Board  of  Trade 

and  its  activities,  and  probably  the  longest  discussion  of  the  royal  veto 

to  be  found  in  any  history  of  the  colonies.     It  is  an  excellent  account 

considering  the  amount  of  space  allotted  to  these  topics. 
CHATHAM,  EARL  OF.     Correspondence  (London,  1838-1840),  4 

vols. 

COBBETT,  WILLIAM.     Parliamentary  History  of  England   (Lon 
don,  1809-1813),  vols.  v-xv. 
COFFIN,  VICTOR.     Province  of  Quebec  and  the  early  American 

Revolution:    in   University   of   Wisconsin   Bulletin,   historical 

series,  vol.  i,  no.  3  (Madison,  1896). 
C.O.  5.     See  Great  Britain,  Board  of  Trade  Papers. 
COLDEN,  CADWALLADER.     Letters:  in  the  New  York  Historical 

Society  Collections  (New  York,  1875-1876),  vol.  x,  xi. 

These  letters  are  of  especial  value  for  the  information  they  contain 

on  judges'  commissions    and  Indian   relations,  during  the  period  from 

1760  to  1765. 
COXE,  WILLIAM.     Memoirs  of  the  Administration  of  the  Right 

Honorable  Henry  Pelham  (London,  1829),  2  vols. 
CROSS,  ARTHUR  L.     Anglican  Episcopate  and  the  American  Col 
onies  (New  York,  1902). 

Of  little  value  in  this  study,  because  it  neglects  the  relations  of  the 

Bishop  of  London  to  the  Board  of  Trade,  not  even  indicating  that  the 

bishop  was  a  member  of  the  Board. 


370        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

DICEY,  ALBERT  V.     Privy  Council   (London,  1887). 

Of  little  help  in  understanding  the  committee  changes  of  the  eight 
eenth  century. 

DOYLE,  JOHN  A.  English  Colonies  in  America  (New  York,  1882- 
1907),  5  vols. 

Du  Bois,  W.  E.  BURGH ARDT.  Suppression  of  the  African  Slave 
Trade  to  the  United  States  of  America,  1638-1870  (New  York, 

1896). 

EDWARDS,  BRYAN.  History  of  the  British  Colonies  in  the  West 
Indies  (London,  1817),  3  vols. 

EGERTON,  HUGH  E.  Short  history  of  British  colonial  policy 
(London,  1897). 

FITZMAURICE,  EDMUND  G.  P.  Life  of  William,  Earl  of  Shel- 
burne  (London,  1875-1876),  3  vols. 

FROTHINGHAM,  RICHARD.  Rise  of  the  Republic  of  the  United 
States,  sixth  edition  (Boston,  1895). 

Institutional  in  its  treatment.  Shows  a  keen  perception  of  the 
fundamental  changes  in  the  colonial  constitution  in  the  first  half  of 
the  eighteenth  century. 

GREAT  BRITAIN.  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  colonial  series,  Amer 
ica  and  the  West  Indies,  1693-1697,  edited  by  J.  W.  Fortescue 
(London,  1903-1904),  2  vols. 

The  condensed  account  of  the  calendared  document  was  found  so 
unsatisfactory  that  the  originals  were  resorted  to  as  far  as  possible. 

Board  of  Trade  Papers.  Manuscripts  in  the  Public  Record 

Office  (London). 

These  are  the  original  manuscript  records  of  the  Board  of  Trade, 
including  the  ones  it  inherited  from  earlier  committees,  and  the  ones 
accumulated  under  its  regime.  The  set  of  papers  is  very  extensive, 
including  a  great  variety  of  material  which  has  been  recently  reclassi- 
fied  or  is  now  in  process  of  reclassification,  consequently  the  papers  are 
no  longer  cited  as  Board  of  Trade  papers  but  as  C.O.  The  Board  of 
Trade  papers  proper  are  regularly  made  up  of  what  were  known  as 
''entry  books,"  and  "originals."  The  "entry  books"  contain  the  official 
copy  of  all  the  out-letters  and  frequently  copies  or  condensations  of 
important  in-letters.  As  the  out-letters  contain  the  record  of  the  official 
action  of  the  Board  in  dealing  with  each  particular  colony,  and  as  this 
monograph  is  primarily  a  study  of  the  Board's  dealings  with  the 
American  territorial  colonies,  the  "entry  books"  have  proved  of  the 
greatest  value  and  have  been  gone  over  carefully.  The  bundles  of 
in-letters,  known  as  "originals"  have  been  consulted  only  so  far  as  they 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  371 


readily  threw  light  upon  the  operation  of  the  announced  policy  of  the 

Board.     On  account  of  the  nature  of  the  subject  under  investigation,  the 

in-letters  were  far  less  valuable  than  were  the  out-letters,  as  they  throw 

comparatively  little  light  upon  the  influences  in  England  which  were 

shaping  colonial   policy.     But  for  any  subject  dealing  with  conditions 

in  the  colonies  they  are  a  veritable  mine  of  information.     The  sets  and 

volumes  which  were  examined  and  to  many  of  which  citations  have 

been  made  in  the  text  are: 

C.O.  5,  5,  ONE  VOLUME.  AMERICA  AND  WEST  INDIES.  General  cor 
respondence  with  the  secretary  of  state.  Contains  some  especially 
valuable  papers  incident  to  Governor  Burner's  quarrel  with  the 
Massachusetts  assembly. 

C.O.  5,  52,  ONE  VOLUME.  Secret  correspondence  concerning  a  treason 
able  plot  in  America  during  the  French  and  Indian  War,  apparently 
implicating  Sir  William  Shirley  and  George  Croghan. 

C.O.  5,  293-299,  SEVEN  BUNDLES.  NORTH  CAROLINA.  In-letters  to  the 
Board. 

C.O.  5,  319,  323-325,  THREE  VOLUMES.  NORTH  CAROLINA.  Entry  books 
of  out-letters. 

C.O.  5,  358-376,  NINETEEN  VOLUMES.  SOUTH  CAROLINA.  In-letters  to 
the  Board. 

C.O.  5,  383-384,  Two  BUNDLES.  SOUTH  CAROLINA.  Unbound  letters 
to  the  secretary  of  state. 

C.O.  5,  400-404,  FIVE  VOLUMES.  SOUTH  CAROLINA.  Entry  books  of 
out-letters. 

C.O.  5,     644-648,  FIVE  BUNDLES.    GEORGIA.    In-letters  to  the  Board. 

C.O.  5,     672-674,  THREE  VOLUMES.    GEORGIA.    Entry  books  of  out-letters. 

C.O.  5,    714-721,  EIGHT  BUNDLES.    MARYLAND.    In-letters  to  the  Board. 

C.O.  5,     724-727,  FOUR  VOLUMES.    MARYLAND.    Entry  books  of  out-letters. 

C-O-  5»  75I-753>  THREE  BUNDLES.  MASSACHUSETTS  BAY.  Letters  to 
the  secretary  of  state. 

C.O.  5,     970-977,  EIGHT  BUNDLES.    NEW  JERSEY.    In-letters  to  the  Board. 

C.O.  5,  994-1000,  SEVEN  VOLUMES.  NEW  JERSEY.  Entry  books  of  out- 
letters. 

C.O.  5,  859-890,  THIRTY-TWO  BUNDLES.  NEW  ENGLAND.  In-letters  to 
the  Board,  very  largely  from  the  governors  of  Massachusetts  Bay. 

C.O.  5,  907-923,  SEVENTEEN  VOLUMES.  NEW  ENGLAND.  Entry  books 
of  out-letters,  principally  to  the  governors  of  Massachusetts  Bay. 

C.O.  5,  925-928,  FOUR  BUNDLES.  NEW  HAMPSHIRE.  In-letters  to  the 
Board. 

C.O.  5,  941-942,  Two  VOLUMES.  NEW  HAMPSHIRE.  Entry  books  of  out- 
letters. 

C.O.  5,  1114-1134,  TWENTY-ONE  VOLUMES.  NEW  YORK.  Entry  books  of 
out-letters. 


372        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

G.O.   5,     1257-1276,  TWENTY  BUNDLES.  PROPRIETIES.  In-letters  from  or 

concerning  the  proprietary  and  charter  colonies. 

C.O.  5,     1287-1298,  TWELVE  VOLUMES.   PROPRIETIES.  Entry  books  of  out- 
letters. 
C.O.  5,     1307-1330,  TWENTY-FOUR  BUNDLES.  VIRGINIA.  In-letters  to  the 

Board. 

C.O.  5,  1358-1368,  ELEVEN  VOLUMES.  VIRGINIA.  Entry  books  of  out- 
letters.  This  set  and  the  one  above  were  very  helpful.  They  con 
tain  material  dealing  with  westward  expansion,  trade  policy,  and 
treatment  of  colonial  laws  not  found  elsewhere. 

C.O.  323,  2-25,  TWENTY-FOUR  BUNDLES.  PLANTATIONS  GENERAL.  In- 
letters  to  the  Board. 

C.O.  324,    6-17,  TWELVE  VOLUMES.  PLANTATIONS  GENERAL.  Entry  books 
of   out-letters.     Transcripts   of  these  two  sets   are  deposited   in  the 
library  of  the  Pennsylvania  Historical  Society  at  Philadelphia. 
GREAT  BRITAIN.     Board  of  Trade.     Journal,  8-74,  67  volumes. 
This  is  the  record  of  the  proceedings  at  the  Board  meetings,  and  is 
of  varying  value.     For  most  of  the  period  covered  by  this  monograph  it 
furnishes  an  excellent  index  to  the  other  Board  of  Trade  papers,   al 
though   a  part  of  it  was  so  badly  kept  that  its  usefulness  is  seriously 
impaired.     In  general  it  is  not  very  valuable  by  itself,  as  many  of  the 
citations  in  it  are  unintelligible  without  the  aid  of  the  other  records. 
Transcripts  of  the  Journal  have  been  made  by  the  Pennsylvania  His 
torical  Society. 

Board  of  Trade.     Jamaica,  vols.  66,  67.     Entry  books  of 

out-letters. 

The  Jamaica  correspondence  shows  that  the  island  colonies  sustained 
about  the  same  relations  to  the  Board  as  did  those  on  the  continent. 

Board  of  Trade.     Commercial  Series  I,  vols.  10-47,  3 8  vols. 

In-letters   from  various  sources  dealing  with  trade  conditions   and 

commercial    relations,    largely   European,   but   including   many   colonial 
papers. 

Board  of  Trade.     Commercial  Series  II,  vols.  640-654,  15 

vols.     Entry  books  of  out-letters,  many  of  which  concern  the 
colonies. 

These  two  sets  are  an  invaluable  supplement  to  the  general  colonial 
correspondence.     They    are    especially    rich    in    material    for   a    history 
of  trade  conditions  during  the  colonial  period. 
•  Board  of  Trade.     Miscellanies. 

Ten  bundles  of  in-letters  and  papers  concerning  the  organization, 
business,  and  financial  history  of  the  Board,  also  four  volumes  of  entry 
books  of  out-letters  and  matters  affecting  clerks,  salaries,  material,  etc. 
Together  these  throw  considerable  light  upon  matters  of  organization 
otherwise  difficult  to  determine. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  373 


GREAT  BRITAIN".     Historical  Manuscripts  Commission   (London, 
!895),  fourteenth  report,  appendix,  part  x. 

Contains  extracts  from  the  Dartmouth  papers  which  afford  a  val 
uable  check  for  the  records  printed  in  other  collections. 

—  Journal  of  the  House  of  Commons  (London,  1803),  vols.  xi-1. 
The  journal   is  especially  valuable   in  showing  the  prominent  part 

the  members  of  the  Board  of  Trade  took  in  all  affairs  relating  to  the 
colonies,  and  the  constant  dependence  upon  these  men  for  information 
of  various  kinds. 

—  Privy  Council  Register,  1696-1765    (Privy  Council  Office, 
Whitehall,  London). 

WILLIAM  III,  vols.  iv-vi. 

ANNE,  vols.  i-vi. 

GEORGE  I,  vols.  i-v. 

GEORGE  II,  vols.  i-xviii. 

GEORGE  III,  vols.  i-iv. 

These  are  the  original  manuscript  records  of  the  Privy  Council  and 
have  not  been  transcribed  or  printed,  although  the  portions  dealing  with 
the  colonies  are  now  available  in  printed  form,  under  the  title  Acts  of 
the  Privy  Council  of  England,  colonial  series,  of  which  the  first  volume, 
covering  the  years  1613-1680,  appeared  in  1908.  These  have  not  been 
used  in  preparing  the  present  volume  for  two  reasons;  in  the  first 
place,  they  were  not  available  when  chapters  in  and  iv  were  being  pre 
pared,  and  in  the  second  place,  an  examination  of  the  original  manu 
scripts  was  considered  sufficient. 

The  Register  is  one  of  the  most  valuable  records  for  the  student  of 
history,  as  it  was  kept  with  scrupulous  care  and  contains  information 
not  recorded  elsewhere.  It  is  the  only  source  which  explains  the  rela 
tions  of  the  Board  of  Trade  to  the  Privy  Council  and  its  committees. 
It  also  contains  the  only  accurate  record  of  the  crown's  disallowance  or 
confirmation  of  colonial  laws. 
Statutes  at  Large,  Pickering  edition  (Cambridge,  1764),  vols. 


ix-xxv. 

GREENE,  EVARTS  B.     Provincial  America  (New  York,  1905). 

Provincial  Governor  in  the  English  Colonies  of  North  Amer 
ica  (New  York,  1898). 

These  two  volumes  contain  the  best  accounts  extant  of  the  rise  of  the 
colonial  assembly  and  the  relations  of  the  colonies  to  the  mother  country. 
The  copious  footnotes  and  the  carefully  edited  bibliographies  also 
furnish  a  convenient  guide  to  the  sources  and  secondary  materials  which 
were  most  useful  in  preparing  this  volume. 

GRENVILLE  PAPERS.     Edited  by  William    J.    Smith     (London, 
1853),  4  vols. 


374        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

These  volumes  are  valuable  for  the  personal  estimate  they  afford  of 
Hillsborough  and  his  administration.  They  also  give  reasons  for  certain 
political  changes  which  affected  the  Board  of  Trade. 

HAZELTINE,  HAROLD  D.  Appeals  from  the  Colonial  Courts  to 
the  King  in  Council,  with  especial  reference  to  Rhode  Island: 
in  American  Historical  Association  Report  for  1894  (Washing 
ton,  1895)- 

HENING,  WILLIAM  W.  Statutes  at  Large,  being  a  Collection  of 
all  the  Laws  of  Virginia,  1619-1792  (Richmond,  1821 ),  13  vols. 

HILDRETH,  RICHARD.  History  of  the  United  States  to  1821 
(New  York,  1849-1852),  6  vols. 

HILL,  WILLIAM.  Colonial  Tariffs:  in  American  Economic  As 
sociation  Reports,  vol.  ii,  78-100. 

HUTCHINSON,  THOMAS.  History  of  the  Province  of  Massachu 
setts  Bay,  1691-1750  (Boston,  1764-1828),  3  vols. 

JENKYNS,  SIR  HENRY.  British  Rule  beyond  the  Sea  (Oxford, 
1902). 

KELLOGG,  LOUISE  P.  The  American  Colonial  Charter :  in  Amer 
ican  Historical  Association  Report  for  1903  (Washington, 
1904),  vol.  i. 

This  monograph  contains  the  best  discussion  in  print  of  the  Board 
of  Trade  and  its  policy.  There  is  a  failure,  however,  to  realize  the 
great  change  after  1752,  and  the  ministerial  character  and  the  Parlia 
mentary  influence  of  the  Board  is  minimized  to  a  greater  extent  than 
the  facts  justify.  One  of  its  best  features  is  the  account  of  the  policy 
of  the  Board  toward  the  charter  and  proprietary  colonies. 

LARNED,  J.  N.     Literature  of  American  History  (Boston,  1902). 

LECKY,  WILLIAM  EDWARD  H.  History  of  England  in  the  Eight 
eenth  Century  (London,  1878-1890),  8  vols. 

Its  chief  value  for  this  study  lies  in  its  estimate  of  men  and  measures. 

LEWIS,  SIR  GEORGE.  Essay  on  the  Government  of  Dependencies 
(Oxford,  1891). 

Originally  published  in  1841. 

LORD,  ELEANOR.  Industrial  Experiments  in  the  British  Colonies 
of  North  America:  in  Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies  in  His 
torical  and  Political  Science,  extra  vol.  xvii  (Baltimore,  1898). 
This  is  a  very  thorough  study  of  the  attempts  of  the  Board  of  Trade 
to  foster  the  production  of  naval  stores  in  America,  but  does  not  show 
the  continuous  relation  between  that  and  the  larger  trade  policy  of  the 
empire. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  375 


MAHON,  LORD  (STANHOPE).  History  of  England  from  the 
Peace  of  Utrecht  to  the  Peace  of  Versailles,  1713-1783  (Lon 
don,  1858),  7  vols. 

MACAULAY,  THOMAS  B.  History  of  England  from  the  Acces 
sion  of  James  the  Second  (London,  1866),  8  vols. 

McCRADY,  EDWARD.     History  of  South  Carolina  under  the  Pro 
prietary  Government,  16701719  (New  York,  1897). 
—  History  of  South  Carolina  under  the  Royal   Government, 
1719-1776  (New  York,  1899). 

MASSACHUSETTS.     Acts  and  Resolves,  Public  and  Private,  of  the 

Province  of  Massachusetts  Bay  (Boston,  1869-1896),  vols.  i-vi. 

The  notes  in  these  volumes  furnish  much  information  on  the  relations 

of  the  colony  to  the  Board,  which  proved  most  valuable  in  preparing  the 

chapter  on  the  treatment  of  colonial  legislation. 

MASSACHUSETTS  HISTORICAL  SOCIETY.  Collections  (Boston, 
1894),  sixth  series,  vols.  vi-vii. 

These  two  volumes  contain  the  papers  of  Jonathan  Belcher,  Govern 
or  of  Massachusetts  and  later  of  New  Jersey.  His  letters  give  much 
information  of  the  influences  which  a  governor  had  to  propitiate  in 
order  to  hold  his  position.  They  also  throw  many  sidelights  upon  the 
actual  work  of  the  Board  of  Trade. 

NEW  JERSEY.  Acts  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Province  of 
New  Jersey,  from  the  surrender  of  the  government  to  Queen 
Anne,  on  the  I7th  Day  of  April,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1702,  to 
the  I4th  day  of  January,  1776,  compiled  by  Samuel  Allinson 
(Burlington,  1776). 

—  Documents  relating  to  the  Colonial  History  of  New  Jersey 
1631-1776,  edited  by  William  A.  Whitehead  (Newark,  1880- 
1902),  24  vols. 

Aside  from  the  regular  correspondence  between  the  governors  and 
the  Board,  the  personal  letters  from  such  men  as  Paris  and  Alexander 
give  much  information  of  the  inner  workings  of  colonial  administration. 

NEW  YORK.  Documents  relating  to  the  Colonial  History  of  the 
State  of  New  York,  procured  by  J.  R.  Brodhead,  vols.  i-xi,  edit 
ed  by  E.  B.  O'Callaghan,  vols.  xii-xv,  edited  by  B.  Fernow 
(Albany,  1853-1883),  15  vols. 

This  set  of  documents  contains  the  most  complete  and  voluminous 
extracts  from  the  Board  of  Trade  papers  of  any  of  the  sets  of  colonial 
documents,  and  has  been  the  chief  source  for  New  York  and  its  rela 
tions  with  the  Board.  The  documents  are  deficient,  however,  in  ma- 


376        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

terial    illustrating   methods    of   procedure    before    the    Board.     Has    an 
excellent   index. 

NEW  YORK.  Colonial  Laws  of  New  York,  from  the  year  1664  to  the 
Revolution,  vols.  i-iv  (Albany,  1894). 

NORTH  CAROLINA.  Colonial  Records,  published  under  the  super 
vision  of  the  trustees  of  the  public  libraries,  by  order  of  the 
General  Assembly,  collected  and  edited  by  William  L.  Saun- 
ders,  vols.  i-vi  (Raleigh,  1885-1888). 

The  complete  extracts  from  the  Board  of  Trade  Journal  of  all 
entries  which  relate  to  North  Carolina  make  an  excellent  supplement 
to  the  information  contained  in  the  other  collections  of  printed  docu 
ments. 

O'CALLAGHAN,  E.  B.  Documentary  History  of  the  State  of  New 
York,  arranged  under  the  direction  of  Hon.  Christopher  Mor 
gan  (Albany,  1849-1851),  4  vols. 

OSGOOD,  HERBERT  L.  American  Colonies  in  the  Seventeenth 
Century  (New  York,  1904-1907),  3  vols. 

One  of  the  most  painstaking  and  detailed  histories  of  the  colonies 
which  have  appeared.  As  it  deals  almost  entirely  with  the  period  pre 
ceding  1696,  it  was  of  little  direct  assistance  in  the  present  study. 

PALFREY,  JOHN  G.  History  of  New  England  (Boston,  1895), 
3  vols. 

The  footnotes  contain  many  valuable  extracts  from  the  Board  of 
Trade  papers,  which  are  not  printed  elsewhere. 

PENN,  WILLIAM  and  James  Logan.  Correspondence:  in  Pennsyl 
vania  Historical  Society,  Memoir,  vols.  ix,  x  (Philadelphia, 

1872). 

PENNSYLVANIA.  Archives,  first  series,  edited  by  Samuel  Hazard 
(Philadelphia,  1852-1856),  12  vols. 

Archives,  second  series,  edited  by  John  B.  Linn  and  Wm.  H. 

Egle  (Harrisburg,  1874-1893),  19  vols. 

Colonial  Records,  1683-1790  (Philadelphia,  1852),  16  vols. 

Statutes  at  Large,   from   1682-1801    (Philadelphia,    1896), 


vols.  ii-vi. 

These  sets  of  documents  are  valuable  for  the  information  which 
they  give  of  the  Board  of  Trade's  treatment  of  colonial  laws.  The 
appendices  to  the  statutes  are  also  especially  good  in  illustrating  pro 
cedure. 

PEPYS,  SAMUEL.  Diary  and  Correspondence  (Philadelphia,  1855), 
4  vols. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  377 


POWNALL,  THOMAS.  Administration  of  the  British  Colonies,  fifth 
edition,  wherein  their  rights  and  constitution  are  discussed  and 
stated  (London,  1774),  2  vols. 

PRATT,  DANIEL  J.  Boundaries  of  the  State  of  New  York  (Al 
bany,  1884),  2  vols. 

Contains  some  documents  not  found  in  print  elsewhere. 

RAPER,  CHARLES  L.  North  Carolina,  a  Study  in  English  Colo 
nial  Government  (New  York,  1904). 

This  was  published  in  a  less  complete  form  under  the  name  of 
North  Carolina;  a  Royal  Province,  1729-1775  (Chapel  Hill,  N.C.,  1901). 

RHODE  ISLAND.  Correspondence  of  the  Colonial  Governors  'of 
Rhode  Island,  1723-1775,  edited  by  Gertrude  S.  Kimball  (Bos 
ton,  1903),  2  vols. 

Supplements  the  private  correspondence  in  the  Belcher  and  Talcott 
papers,  and  is  of  similar  value. 

Records  of  the   Colony  of   Rhode   Island   and   Providence 

Plantations  in  New  England,  edited  by  J.  R.  Bartlett  (Provi 
dence,  1856-1865),  10  vols. 

RIPLEY,  WILLIAM  Z.  Financial  History  of  Virginia,  1609-1776: 
in  Columbia  University  Studies  in  History,  etc.,  vol.  iv,  1-170 
(New  York). 

SEELEY,  SIR  JOHN  R.     Expansion  of  England  (London,  1883). 

SHARPE,  HORATIO.  Correspondence:  in  Maryland  Historical  So 
ciety  Archives  of  Maryland,  vols.  vi,  ix,  xiv  (Baltimore,  1888- 

1895). 

These  volumes  are  of  especial  value  for  the  period  of  the  Board 
under  the  presidency  of  Halifax.  The  letters  of  Calvert  and  Sharpe 
furnish  many  illustrations  of  the  aggressive  attitude  of  the  Board  to 
ward  the  proprietary  colonies. 

SHEPHERD,  WILLIAM  R.  History  of  Proprietary  Government  in 
Pennsylvania:  in  Columbia  University  Studies  in  History,  etc., 
vol.  vi  (New  York,  1896). 

SMITH,  WILLIAM.  History  of  New  York,  from  its  discovery  till 
1732,  with  a  continuation  from  1732-1814  (Albany,  1814). 

SMITH,  W.  R.  South  Carolina  as  a  Royal  Province,  1719-1776 
(New  York,  1903). 

SOUTH  CAROLINA.  Statutes  at  Large,  edited  by  Thomas  Cooper 
and  J.  B.  McCord  (Columbia,  1836-1841),  10  vols. 


378        AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 

SPENCER,  CHARLES  W.  Phases  of  Royal  Government  in  New 
York,  1691-1719  (Columbus,  O.,  1906). 

A  thoroughly  conscientious  piece  of  work,  but  on  account  of  the 
limited  scope  of  the  investigation,  it  is  lacking  in  perspective. 

STANHOPE,  EARL.  Reign  of  Queen  Anne  until  the  Peace  of 
Utrecht,  1701-1713  (London,  1872). 

STEPHEN,  LESLIE,  and  Sidney  Lee.  Dictionary  of  National  Bio 
graphy  (New  York,  1885-1900),  63  vols. 

This  was  the  chief  source  of  information  for  biographical  material 
used  in  chapter  i.  The  articles  not  only  give  valuable  information  but 
afford,  by  means  of  references,  a  convenient  guide  to  other  sources. 

TALCOTT  PAPERS,  correspondence  and  documents  during  Joseph 
Talcott's  governorship  of  the  Colony  of  Connecticut,  1724-1741, 
edited  by  Mary  K.  Talcott:  in  Connecticut  Historical  Society 
Collections,  vols.  iv,  v  (Hartford,  1892-1896). 

The  letters  in  these  two  volumes  illustrate  the  attitude  of  the  Board 
toward  a  charter  colony,  and  also  throw  many  sidelights  upon  methods 
of  procedure. 

TODD,  ALPHEUS.  Parliamentary  Government  in  England  (Lon 
don,  1892). 

TRUMBULL,  BENJAMIN.  Complete  history  of  Connecticut,  civil 
and  ecclesiastical,  to  1764  (New  Haven,  1818),  2  vols. 

WALPOLE,  HORACE.     Letters  (Oxford,  1905),  1 6  vols. 

Memoirs  of  last  ten  years  of  the  Reign  of  King  George  II 

(London,  1847),  3  vols. 

Memoirs  of  the  Reign  of  George  III  (London,  1845),  4  vols. 

Of  these  three  works  the  letters  have  been  of  most  service.     They 

furnish  a  great  deal  of  information  on  the  reasons  for  cabinet  changes 
and  for  changes  in  the  personnel  of  the  Board.  They  also  throw  light 
on  the  personal  relations  of  the  various  officials  to  each  other. 

WEEDEN,  WILLIAM  B.  Economic  and  Social  History  of  New 
England  (Boston,  1890),  2  vols. 

WINSOR,  JUSTIN.  Narrative  and  Critical  History  of  America 
(Boston,  1886-1889),  8  vols. 

Its  chief  service  for  a  study  of  this  kind  lies  in  the  fact  that  it 
affords  a  convenient  guide  to  the  literature  of  the  field. 


INDEX 


ADDISON,  JOSEPH:  38 

Admiralty:  instructions  regarding 
jurisdiction,  121-122;  relations 
with  Board  of  Trade,  121-123  > 
protection  of  colonial  waters,  122; 
protection  of  witnesses,  122 

Admiralty  Courts:  121-122 

Agents,  Colonial:  Board  of  Trade 
clerks  forbidden  to  serve,  70-71 ; 
governors  must  maintain,  156; 
value  to  colony,  266-267 

Albany:  forts,  323;  congress,  340 

Albemarle,  Earl  of:  151,  footnote 

Alderney   (island) :  95 

Altamaha   (river)  :  331 

Amherst,  Gen.  Jeffery:  350 

Andros,   Edmund:  19 

Anne,  Queen:  86-88 

Appeals:  how  considered,  88;  ac 
tion  of  committees,  95-96 ;  effect 
on  laws,  274-275 ;  procedure,  275- 
276 ;  Board  of  Trade  considers, 
276-279  ;  committee  considers  legal 
questions,  280-281 

Appointments:  not  controlled  by 
Board  of  Trade,  in;  influence  of 
Bishop  of  London,  124;  by  secre 
tary  of  state,  142-143 ;  of  pro 
vincial  councillors,  124,  146;  of 
colonial  secretaries,  147-148 ;  of 
colonial  chief  justices  and  at 
torneys-general,  148 ;  of  proprie 
tary  governors,  149;  Board  of 
Trade  controls,  150;  of  judges, 
152-153,  195-209;  promotions,  152 

Ashe,  Edward:  60 

Assembly,  Colonial:  rise  and  in 
crease  of  power,  ii,  158-179;  en 


croachments,  13,  160;  excludes 
councils  from  legislation,  165-174; 
Board  of  Trade  tries  to  check, 
172-173 ;  transfers  power  to 
America,  173-174;  seizes  military 
power,  174;  effect  of  increased 
power,  174;  nullifies  Indian  pol 
icy,  175;  judiciary  dependent 
upon,  198-199;  modifies  laws, 
262-263 ;  causes  revolution  in  gov 
ernment,  361-362.  Of  Maryland  — 
controls  money  bills,  169;  refuses 
appropriation  for  French  and  In 
dian  War,  169-170.  Of  Massa 
chusetts  Bay  —  powers  described, 
167-168 ;  Board  of  Trade  warns, 
178.  Of  New  Jersey  —  disburses 
military  grants,  166;  controls 
money  bills,  166;  audits  accounts, 
166-167.  Of  Neiv  York  —  appoints 
treasurer,  160;  controls  expendi 
tures,  160-162;  amendments  to 
money  bills,  160-161;  controls  ap 
pointments,  163 ;  in  time  of  war, 
165;  refuses  permanent  revenue, 
183  ;  judges  commissions,  202.  Of 
North  Carolina  —  controls  money 
affairs,  171-172;  permits  no 
amendments  to  money  bills,  172. 
Of  Pennsylvania  —  power  of  coun 
cil,  170;  controls  money  affairs, 
170;  borrows  money,  170-171; 
issues  bills  of  credit,  171 ;  cor 
rupts  governor,  171.  Of  South 
Carolina  —  controls  appointments, 
172;  develops  committee  system, 
172 
Atkins,  Edmund:  341 


38o       AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 


Attorney-general       (of      England) : 

74-75,  148,  196,  200 
Atwood,   William:   chief   justice   of 

New  York,  196;  salary,  198 

BACON,  EDWARD:  54 

Bankruptcy  laws:  253 

Barbadoes:  appeals,  87-88,  footnote, 
91 ;  representation  on  laws,  88, 
footnote;  ecclesiastical  court,  126 

Bedford,  Duke  of:  letter  to  Hali 
fax,  23,  footnote;  offers  Halifax 
presidency  of  Board  of  Trade, 
39 ;  attendance  at  Board  of  Trade, 
no,  footnote;  influence  over  ap 
pointments,  147 

Bedford  (N.Y.) :  288-289 

Belcher,  Jonathan :  correspondence 
with  Board  of  Trade,  67,  foot 
note;  Bladen's  hostility  to,  144- 
145 ;  appointments,  146,  147 ;  diffi 
cult  position,  157;  instructions, 
186-187;  salary,  187-188;  ham 
pered  by  riots,  190 

Bellomont,  Earl  of:  on  qualifications 
for  lieutenant  governors,  in, 
footnote;  factions  in  N.Y.,  156; 
desires  chief  justice  and  attorney- 
general,  196;  commission,  321 

Bernard,  Francis:  transferred  to 
Mass.  Bay,  152;  warned,  177 

Bills  of  attainder:  261 

Bills  of  credit:  in  N.Y.,  82-83;  af 
fect  prices,  120;  provisions  for 
sinking,  217;  acts  disallowed,  237- 
238 ;  of  N.  H.,  excluded  by  Mass., 
250;  beginning,  314;  colonial  is 
sues,  315-319;  attempts  to  check, 
315-320;  acts  to  have  suspending 
clause,  316;  order  evaded,  316- 
317;  Parliament  prohibits,  318- 
319;  wars  increase  issues,  318-319 

Bishop  of  London:  ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction,  123 ;  relations  to 
Board  of  Trade,  123-126;  adds 
clause  to  governors'  instructions, 
124;  approves  provincial  coun 


cillors,     124;     considers     colonial 
laws,  265 

Bladen,  Martin:  35,  footnote; 
service  on  Board  of  Trade,  37, 
60;  influence  over  appointments, 
144;  proposes  stamp  tax,  188; 
opposes  temporary  grants,  188 ; 
envoy  to  France,  287 

Board  of  Trade:  Organization  — 
created,  20-22 ;  commission,  22- 
28;  organizes,  30;  salaries,  22; 
relations  with  cabinet,  23 ;  lacks 
independence,  26-28 ;  personnel, 
27-57;  efficiency,  31,  357-358;  in 
efficiency,  34 ;  cause  of  inefficiency, 
64-65;  attendance  of  members,  35, 
footnote ;  changes  in  power,  50, 
55,  56,  67;  reflects  political 
changes,  57-59 ;  length  of  service 
of  members,  59-61 ;  periods  of 
varying  activity,  61,  67,  112; 
schedules  for  business,  62 ;  method 
of  handling  correspondence,  65, 
66;  postage,  137-141;  question 
able  use  of  money,  70;  fees,  72- 
73 ;  secretaries  of  state  attend 
meetings,  no;  suffers  from  New 
castle's  policy,  67,  112;  reflects 
energy  of  Halifax,  67;  acquires 
ministerial  character,  129-130. 

Clerks  and  secretaries  —  office 
force,  68-79  >  now  appointed,  78 ; 
promoted  for  merit,  79;  tenure, 
78-79 ;  compensation,  68-69 » 
bribes,  tips,  and  fees,  69,  71,  72; 
tenacious  of  privileges,  70;  as 
colonial  agents,  70-71 ;  ordered  to 
attend  to  business,  71,  footnote; 
clerk  of  reports,  73-74;  special 
attorney,  74-76 ;  secretary  and  his 
work,  76-78. 

Activities  —  examines  witnesses 
on  oath,  26,  footnote;  commercial 
work,  61-62 ;  instructs  envoys,  63- 
64;  relations  to  Privy  Council, 
101-107,  3591  relations  to  South 
ern  Department,  107-115;  drafts 


INDEX 


38i 


governors'  instructions,  115-116; 
relations  with  customs  officials, 
115-119;  uses  them  as  agents,  117; 
relations  to  treasury,  119-121;  ap 
portions  grants,  120;  relations 
with  admiralty,  121-123  >  relations 
with  Bishop  of  London,  123-127; 
fair  in  religious  matters,  126-127; 
relations  with  Parliament,  127- 
131;  appropriation  bills,  130; 
lack  of  colonial  patronage,  142- 
144;  obtains  patronage,  146-147; 
colonial  agents,  156,  footnote] 
conflict  with  New  York  assembly, 
163-164;  resists  encroachments, 
172-177;  suspends  struggle,  177; 
permanent  civil  list,  181-193  ;  re 
ports  on  New  York  and  New  Jer 
sey,  190-191 ;  a  fighting  ministry, 
191-195;  attacks  charter  and  pro 
prietary  colonies,  212-213  '•>  makes 
judges'  commissions  uniform,  204- 
208 ;  control  of  colonial  militia, 
210-211;  plans  of  union,  209-223; 
prevents  trade  discriminations, 
250;  size  of  assemblies,  254-256; 
rules  on  private  bills,  258-259 ; 
shapes  colonial  constitutions,  262 ; 
slowness,  283-284;  settles  bound 
ary  controversies,  285-296;  en 
forcement  of  trade  laws,  296 ; 
commercial  policy,  299-320;  colo 
nial  defense,  320-336;  advo 
cates  westward  expansion,  326- 
332;  Indian  policy,  336-356;  sum 
mary  of  career,  357-364 

Boone,  Thomas:  152 

Boston:  133,  134 

Boundaries:  instructions  to  envoys, 
63 ;  vagueness,  285 ;  treaties  af 
fecting,  286-287;  between  colonies, 
287-288 ;  procedure  in  settling, 
288-291 ;  consent  of  both  colonies 
necessary,  292,  295-296 ;  cost  of 
marking,  295-296 

Bounties:  on  naval  stores,  116;  on 
infant  colonial  industries,  313-314 


Braddock,  Gen.  Edward:  334,  340 

Bridger,  John:  surveyor  of  woods, 
119;  gives  instruction  in  tar-mak 
ing,  307 

Broughton,  Sampson  S:  attorney- 
general  for  New  York,  196 ;  sal 
ary,  198 

Burnet,  William:  quoted,  33;  dis 
pute  with  assembly  of  Massa 
chusetts,  96;  governor  of  New 
York,  143,  footnote ;  salary,  185; 
to  extend  settlements  westward, 
328 

Burrington,  George:  on  Newcastle's 
appointments,  144;  trouble  with 
factions,  157;  to  check  encroach 
ments  of  assembly,  172-173 

Burrish,  Onslow:  74 

CANADA:  expedition  against,  120, 
footnote  ;  communications  with 
Louisiana,  326 

Canary  Islands:  87,  footnote 

Cape  Fear  River:  325 

Cape  Lookout:  324-325 

Carey,  Thomas:  149 

Carteret,  John  (Earl  of  Granville)  : 
109,  327 

Channel  Islands:  83 

Charles,  Robert:  263,  footnote 

Charleston:   133 

Charter  colonies:  bill  to  resume,  127; 
charges  against,  212-213 ;  sub 
mission  of  laws,  225 

Chelsea    (England)  :  91 

Civil  list  (for  colonies)  :  question 
becomes  prominent,  181-182;  N. 
Y.  assembly  refuses,  183;  Parlia 
ment  to  establish,  183-184,  193 ; 
Massachusetts  assembly  to  furnish, 
185;  controversy  over,  185-189; 
supplied  by  stamp  tax,  188;  NJ. 
legislature  refuses,  189;  contro 
versy  over,  190-193 ;  demands 
postponed,  193 ;  crown  furnishes, 
194;  in  various  colonies,  194 

Clark  vs.  Tousey:  275 


382       AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 


Clarke,  George  (gov.  of  N.Y.) : 
162-163 

Clinton,  George:  conflict  with  N,  Y. 
assembly,  165;  commissions  judges 
during  behavior,  199 ;  appoints 
De  Lancey  chief  justice,  200 

Coins:  233 

Golden,  Cadwallader:  letters,  78; 
judges'  commissions,  202;  admits 
appeal  from  jury  decision,  279; 
opinion  of  Indian  plan,  350 

Colonial  laws:  see  Laws,  Colonial 

Colonies,  Proprietary:  charges 
against,  118,  212-213;  bill  to  re 
sume,  127;  approval  of  governors, 
149 ;  surrender  to  crown,  214 

Commerce:  unsatisfactory  conditions, 
20;  treaties,  61-62;  paper  money 
affects,  120,  314-318;  in  winter, 
134;  intercolonial,  238-240,  249- 
251;  with  England,  240-245,  300- 
309;  customs  regulations,  239;  in 
time  of  war,  296-299 ;  British  pol 
icy,  296-320;  see  Trade,  Smug 
gling,  Bills  of  Credit,  etc. 

Commons,  House  of:  attempts  to  cre 
ate  Council  for  Trade,  20-21 ; 
relations  with  Board  of  Trade, 
127-130;  see  Parliament 

Communication:  letters  from  colo 
nies,  113,  footnote;  no  regular 
colonial  mail  service,  133 ;  trad 
ing  vessels  carry  letters,  134,  136; 
not  delivered  promptly,  136-137; 
bad  postal  conditions  in  England, 
137;  wars  interrupt,  138-140; 
letters  opened  in  transit,  138; 
regular  mail  service,  140-141 

Complaints:  filed  with  Board  of 
Trade,  281-282;  how  conducted, 
281-283 ;  expense  of  prosecuting, 
284 

Connecticut:  trouble  with  Andros, 
19;  boundary  dispute,  82,  288- 
289;  intestates'  law,  102-103,  238; 
isolation,  133-134;  opposes  mili 


tary   commissions,   211;   Mohegan 

Indians,  295 

Constitution,   Colonial:    158-159 
Convoys:   for    fleets    from   America, 

116;       Virginia      traders,       300; 

frauds  in,  306,  footnote 
Cornbury,    Lord   E:   N.Y.    assembly 

distrusts,  160-161 ;  asks  salary  for 

Dr.  Bridges,  198 
Cotton,  Sir  John  Hinde:  cited,  33; 

legislative   activity,    127,   footnote 
Craggs,  James   (sec.  of  state) :  143, 

footnote 

Criminals:  245-246 
Cromwell,  Oliver:  19 
Customs,  Commissioners  of:  115-119 
Customs,    Surveyors   of:   agents    for 

Board  of  Trade,  117;  members  of 

councils,  119 

DANVERS  (Mass.) :  254 

Dartmouth,  Lord:  184 

Dartmouth   (Mass.)  :  267-269 

Debtors:  253 

Declaration   of   Independence:   208 

Defense:  strength  of  colonists,  320; 
Board  of  Trade  plans,  320-321  ; 
prepares  estimates,  333-334;  mili 
tary  stores,  321-322,  334;  colonial 
fortifications,  323-324;  against 
French,  326  ff. ;  of  back  country, 
326  ff. ;  importance  of  mountain 
passes,  327-328 ;  expansion  endan 
gers,  332;  policy  of  Halifax,  333; 
entrusted  to  Braddock,  334 

De  Lancey,  James  (gov.  of  N.Y.) : 
192;  chief  justice,  200;  commis 
sions  judges  during  good  be 
havior,  199;  cited,  343 

Delaware  River:  95 

Denny,  William  (gov.  of  Penn.) : 
171 

De  Peyster,  Abraham:  160 

Disallowance:  see  Laws 

Divorces:  in  Mass.,  257;  private 
acts,  259-260 


INDEX 


383 


Dobbs,  Arthur  (gov.  of  N.  Car.) : 
signs  judiciary  act,  202-203; 
complains  of  S.  Car.  law,  250; 
to  create  counties,  255 ;  on  forti 
fications  at  Cape  Lookout,  324.; 
requests  military  supplies,  325 

Docminique,  Paul  (member  of  Board 
of  Trade) :  37,  60 

Dominica:  286 

Drysdale,  Hugh  (lieut.-gov.  of  Va.) : 
328 

Dudley,  Robert  (gov.  of  Mass. 
Bay):  143,  footnote',  commands 
R.  I.  militia,  212 

Dunbar,  David:  surveyor  of  woods, 
and  lieut.-gov.  of  N.H.,  143 ;  owes 
appointment  to  Bladen,  145 

Dunk,  George:  see  Halifax,  Earl  of 

EAST  INDIA  COMPANY:  29 

Eden,  Charles  (gov.  of  N.  Car.) :  150 

Edgecombe,  Richard  (member  of 
Board  of  Trade) :  58 

Egerton,  John  (Earl  of  Bridge- 
water)  :  28 

Ellis,  Henry  (gov.  of  Ga.) :  139 

Embargo:  335 

Everard,  Richard  (gov.  of  N.  Car.) : 
96 

Excise:  245 

FANE,  FRANCIS:  member  of  Board  of 
Trade,  50;  attorney  for  Board  of 
Trade,  75 ;  opinion  on  N.  Y.  tri 
ennial  act,  228,  footnote-,  report 
on  Penn.  laws,  246 

Fane,  Thomas  (Earl  of  Westmore 
land)  :  34 

Fauquier,  Francis  (gov.  of  Va.)  : 
345-346 

Fish:  245-246 

Fletcher,  Benjamin  (gov.  of  N.  Y.) : 
cited,  239;  asks  for  supplies,  321 

Florida:  130 

Forests:  314 

France:  286-287 


Franklin,  Benjamin:  attempts  to  se 
cure  papers,  76;  gives  bond,  263, 
footnote 

Franklin,  William:  153 

French:  326 

French  and  Indian  War:  colonial 
expenses,  121 ;  opportunity  for  as 
semblies,  176-177;  outbreak,  193 

GANSEVOERT,  HARME  (town  clerk  of 
Albany) :  199 

George  I:  Board  of  Trade  changes 
at  accession,  34;  leaves  affairs  to 
ministers,  88 

Georgia:  crown  pays  expenses,  130; 
civil  list,  194;  Indians,  337 

Gibraltar:  91,  footnote 

Gooch,  William  (gov.  of  Va.) :  67, 
footnote 

Governor,  Colonial:  weakness,  154- 
158;  dependent  upon  assembly, 
155;  complaints  against,  156; 
maintains  agent,  156;  forced  to 
sign  bills,  230.  Instructions  — 
how  drawn,  115,  124;  powers  of 
assemblies,  173 ;  fixed  salaries, 
183-195;  general  revision,  191- 
192;  commissions  of  judges,  195- 
196,  199,  200-201,  204**  limit  legis 
lation,  243-245,  249,  254-256; 
regulate  private  bills,  257;  ap 
peals,  279-280;  require  suspending 
clause,  316;  land  grants  in  Indian 
country,  346-34?;  see  Assembly 

Green  Briar  River:  345 

Grenville,  George:  175 

Grenville,  James:  50,  58 

Grenville,  Richard:  50 

Grey,  Ford  (Earl  of  Tankerville) : 
29 

Grey,  Thomas  (Earl  of  Stamford)  : 

33 
Guernsey  (island) :  84 

HALDANE,  —  (gov.  of  Jamaica):  152 
Halifax,  Earl  of:  president  of  Board 


384       AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 


of  Trade,  39 ;  demands  more 
power,  40;  Halifax  (Nova  Sco 
tia)  named  in  his  honor,  40; 
energy,  47;  resigns,  47-48,  50; 
asks  admission  to  cabinet,  48 ; 
king  objects,  49;  remains  in  office, 
49;  admitted  to  cabinet,  50;  re 
tires  from  Board  of  Trade,  54; 
goes  to  Ireland,  59;  length  of 
service,  60;  Pownall  an  adviser, 
77;  attendance  at  committees, 
100;  makes  Board  of  Trade  effi 
cient,  114;  protects  Nova  Scotia, 
122;  controls  patronage,  151; 
connection  with  Indian  plan,  350 

Hamilton,  W.  G:  53,  59,  149 

Hardy,  Josiah:  removed  from  office, 
152-153,  205;  demands  for  reve 
nue,  177;  commissions  judges,  203  ; 
cited,  343 

Hedges,  Sir  Charles:  128,  footnote 

Hemp:  310-311 

Hill,  Abraham:  30 

Hillsborough,  Earl  of:  secretary  of 
state  for  colonies,  56;  colonial  pol 
icy,  56-57;  resigns,  57 

Holderness,  Earl  of:  modifies  em 
bargo,  335;  cited,  340 

Howard,  Henry    (Earl  of  Suffolk): 

34 

Hudson's  Bay  Company:  boundary, 
63 ;  claims,  286 

Hunter,  Robert  (gov.  of  N.  Y.) : 
trouble  with  factions,  156-157; 
struggle  with  assembly,  163-164, 
183-185;  asks  aid  of  Parliament, 
164;  secures  amendments  to  reve 
nue  act,  243 ;  appoints  boundary 
commission,  291 

Hutcheson,  Archibald:  149 

Hyde,  Edward  (gov.  of  N.  Car.): 
149 

IMMIGRATION:  colonies  regulate,  245- 
247 ;  laws  vetoed,  246-247,  248- 
249;  from  colonies,  251-252 


Indians:  agents,  341;  alliances,  325- 
326,  339,  342-343;  claims,  286, 
295,  338,  343,  346,  347-348;  trade, 
241,  242,  249,  341-342,  349-356; 
treaties,  333,  339,  342-343  J  Chero- 
kees,  242;  Creeks,  242;  Five  Na 
tions,  286;  Mohegans,  295,  338; 
Six  Nations,  333,  337-338,  34<> 
341;  Twightwees  [Miamis],  340; 
general  policy,  336,  339;  given 

,  presents,  336-337,  340;  mission 
aries  and  artificers,  337-338,  351- 
352;  attack  settlers,  339-340;  land 
cessions,  340,  343-34$,  353  J  dis 
like  westward  expansion,  342-343 ; 
fear  English  success,  345 ;  Treaty 
of  Paris  increases  problem,  347- 
348;  Board  of  Trade  protects 
rights,  347-348;  general  plan 
proposed,  349-356;  cost,  354;  sale 
of  rum,  354;  plan  abandoned,  354- 

355 

Industrial  and  Social  Conditions: 
unsatisfactory  to  English  mer 
chants,  20;  inheritance,  102-103, 
238;  forest  conservation,  in,  127; 
production  of  naval  stores,  116- 
117,  127-128,  306-308;  production 
of  potash,  119;  paper  money  af 
fects,  120,  314-319;  mining,  128, 
311;  means  of  communication, 
133-141;  shipping,  238-240,  307- 
311;  ports  and  towns,  239-241, 
254-256;  tobacco,  240;  manufac 
turing,  241,  302-312;  immigration, 
245-252 ;  slaves,  247-250,  262 ; 
land  holding,  251-252,  270;  pro 
tection  of  debtors,  253 ;  growth  of 
population,  253-254;  westward 
movement,  326-342;  Indians,  336- 
356 

Instructions:   see   Governor 

Ireland:  87 

Iron:  colonial  production,  128,  foot 
note,  311;  import  .duty,  311-312; 
bill  regulates  manufacture,  312 


INDEX 


385 


Isle  of  Man:  91,  footnote 

JAMAICA:  appeals,  95;  judiciary  act, 
201;  triennial  bill,  230-231 

Jennings,  Edmund  (sec.  of  Va.) : 
148,  footnote 

Jenyns,  Soame:  60 

Jersey  (island):  appeals,  84,  91; 
stores  for,  95 

Jerseys:  213;  see  New  Jersey 

Johnson,  Sir  Matthew  (gov.  of  N. 
Car.) :  135-136,'  149 

Johnson,  Sir  William:  colonel  of 
Six  Nations,  338-339;  superin 
tendent  of  Six  Nations,  340-341 ; 
clashes  with  Shirley,  341;  Board 
of  Trade  consults,  342,  349-350 

Judiciary:  sent  from  England,  196- 
197;  tenure  of  office,  153,  195-209; 
policy  of  Board  of  Trade,  197, 
200-204;  independence,  198-200; 
termination  of  commissions,  202 ; 
made  uniform,  204-206;  causes  ill 
feeling  in  America,  208-209 ;  sum 
mary,  363 

KANAWHA  RIVER:  345 

Knowles,  Admiral:  298,  footnote 

LAMB,  MATTHEW:  75 

Land:  holding,  251-252;  seating, 
251-252;  titles,  287 

Laud,  Archbishop:  17 

Laws,  Colonial :  submitted  to  crown, 
225 ;  suspending  clauses,  226 ; 
number  disallowed,  227;  how 
considered,  264-267. 

Disallowance  —  REASONS  :  en 
croach  upon  prerogative,  228; 
regulate  duty  of  (  patent  officer, 
229;  hamper  military  operations, 
229;  change  charters  granted  by 
king,  230;  ecclesiastical,  231-232, 
261-262;  permit  affirmations,  233; 
affect  material  interest  of  crown, 
233 ;  inconsistent  with  laws  of 


England,  234;  fail  to  recognize 
right  of  appeal,  236;  interfere 
with  admiralty  courts,  236;  create 
novel  rules  of  procedure,  237;  in 
flict  unusual  penalties,  237; 
change  value  of  money,  237-238 ; 
change  laws  of  inheritance,  238 ; 
interfere  with  customs  regula 
tions,  239;  discriminate  in  favor 
of  provincial  shipping,  239-240; 
burden  English  shipping,  240;  in 
terfere  with  tobacco  culture,  240; 
burden  trade,  241 ;  regulate  Indian 
trade,  241-242;  discriminate 
against  English  commerce,  242 ; 
regulate  foreign  commerce,  242- 
245;  burden  English  merchants, 
245;  regulate  immigration,  1246; 
regulate  slave  trade,  247-249 ; 
regulate  inter-colonial  trade,  249- 
251;  injure  neighbors,  251;  create 
large  land  holdings,  245-252;  af 
fect  private  property,  252-253 ;  in 
crease  size  of  lower  house,  254- 
256;  violate  instructions,  257-261; 
lack  suspending  clause,  257-261; 
repeal  laws  already  confirmed, 
262.  GENERAL:  in  royal  pro 
vinces,  225;  in  charter  colonies, 
225-226,  264;  not  a  veto,  226; 
king  not  responsible,  227 ;  impor 
tance,  227-228;  Board  of  Trade 
controls,  227-228;  involves  consti 
tutional  test,  234-235;  procedure, 
263-274;  causes  confusion,  272- 
273;  irritating,  273 

Leeward  Islands:  216 

Legge,  William:  see  Dartmouth 

Legislation,  Colonial:  treatment,  364- 
365;  see  Assembly,  Laws 

Livingston,  Robert:  338 

Locke,  John:  28,  33 

London:  coal  supply,  87,  footnote; 
musicians  and  dancing  masters, 
91,  footnote 

Lords,   House  of:  127 


386       AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 


Louisiana:  326 
Lumber:  311 

Lyttelton,  W.  H.  (gov.  of  S.  Car.): 
152 ;  instructions,  342 

MARKHAM,  WILLIAM:  149 

Maryborough,  Duke  of:  32 

Maryland:  laws  against  popery, 
125,  footnote ;  civil  list,  194;  ports, 
240;  manufacture  of  woolens,  304- 
305;  production  of  naval  stores, 
308 

Massachusetts:  Andros  regime,  19; 
boundary  disputes,  95,  105,  293- 
295 ;  encroachments  of  assembly, 
177-178;  ports,  239;  excise,  245; 
suspending  clause,  257-258,  317- 
318;  private  bills,  258;  divorce 
acts,  260,  footnote ;  bills  of  credit, 
314;  military  stores,  322 

Meadows,  Sir  Philip:  32 

Methuen,  John:  30 

Mildmay,  Benjamin:  35 

Militia:  210 

Mississippi  River:  326 

Mohawk  country:  Indian  claims, 
338;  land  grants,  343 

Molasses  Act:  117-118 

Mompesson,  Roger:  196 

Money:  foreign  coins,  128;  assembly 
supplies,  159;  how  expended,  159; 
annual  grants,  176-177;  see  Bills 
of  Credit 

Monson,  Lord  John:  president  of 
Board  of  Trade,  35;  service,  61 ; 
explains  objections  to  laws,  102, 
footnote 

Montgomery,  John:  143,  footnote 

Moore,  Arthur:  33 

Morris,  Lewis  (gov.  of  N.  J.)  : 
quoted,  166;  vetoes  paper  money 
bill,  171 ;  describes  conditions  in 
N.  J.,  166;  salary,  189-190 

Morris,  Robert  Hunter:  35,  footnote 

Morris,  William:  147 

Mosley,  Edward:  171,  footnote 


NAVAL  STORES:  bounties,  116-117, 
306-307;  colonial  production,  127- 
128,  307-308 ;  South  Carolina 
taxes,  250;  object  of  encourage 
ment,  306-307 ;  discouraged  in  Va. 
and  Md.,  308 

Nevis  (island):  councillors,  95; 
relief  of  settlers,  121 

Newcastle,  Duke  of:  referred  to,  35, 
footnote,  122,  135,  332,  358;  sub 
ordinates  Board  of  Trade,  36, 
112;  influence  with  Halifax,  54; 
attendance  at  committees,  100, 
footnote;  attendance  at  Board  of 
Trade,  no,  footnote',  correspond 
ence  with  governors,  112;  in 
fluence  pernicious,  113-114;  or 
ders,  113-114;  controls  patronage, 
144,  148 ;  executive  ability,  145 ; 
interferes  with  appointments,  151; 
attempts  to  frighten  Mass.,  186 

New  England:  Andros  regime,  19; 
manufacture  of  woolens,  305-306 ; 
see  various  colonies 

New  Foundland:  280 

New  Hampshire:  extraordinary 
laws,  273 ;  boundary  dispute,  290 

New  Jersey:  report  of  conditions,  74; 
disorders,  no;  unusual  claims, 
121 ;  civil  list,  189-191;  separation 
from  N.  Y.,  189;  weakness  of 
government,  190-191 ;  judiciary, 
204-205 ;  triennial  act,  228 ;  im 
portation  of  criminals,  245-246 ; 
boundary  dispute,  291-292 ;  see 
Assembly 

New  York:  report  of  conditions,  74, 
191;  boundaries,  82,  288-289,  291- 
292,  293-295 ;  bills  of  credit,  82, 
316;  civil  list,  127;  mail  service, 
133;  revenue  acts,  182,  243; 
judges'  salaries,  198-199;  judges' 
commissions,  199-204;  triennial 
act,  228 ;  duties  on  slaves,  248  ; 
claims,  286;  defense,  320;  im 
portance,  323-324;  see  Assembly 


INDEX 


387 


Noell,  Martin:  18 

North  Carolina:  ordnance  stores,  95; 
admiralty  jurisdiction,  96;  isola 
tion,  133-134;  bad  mail  service, 
135;  dispatches,  137;  judiciary, 
202,  207 ;  biennial  act,  228 ;  quit 
rents,  233;  Indian  trade,  249;  new 
counties,  254-255 ;  boundary  dis 
pute,  290;  defense,  325;  see  As 
sembly 

Nova  Scotia:  protection,  122;  crown 
supports  government,  130;  civil 
list,  194;  claims,  286 

OHIO  COMPANY:  329 

Ohio  country:  disputes  over  posses 
sion,  109 ;  settlers,  345 

Ohio  River:  351 

Orders  in  Council:  boundary  between 
Conn,  and  N.  Y.,  82;  bills  of 
credit,  82-83 ;  see  Laws,  Governor, 
Privy  Council 

Osborn,  Sir  Danvers:  resists  irregu 
lar  money  bills,  176;  instructions, 
192,  340 

Oswego:  328 

PARIS,  F^  J:  cited,  71;  employed  in 
colonial  matters,  107 ;  comments 
on  Pennsylvania  assembly,  170; 
quoted,  275-276 

Paris,  Treaty  of:  347 

Parliament:  relations  with  Board  of 
Trade,  73,  127-131;  appropriates 
money  for  colonies,  121 ;  reports 
delayed,  134-135;  revenue  for  N. 
Y.,  183-184 

Parsons'  Cause:  231 

Partridge,  Richard:  71,  footnote 

Patronage:  142-148,  151;  see  Ap 
pointments 

Paupers:  246 

Pelham,  Henry:  54 

Pelham,  Thomas:  59-60 

Penn,  William:  influence,  108 ;  ap 
points  governors,  149 ;  bill  for 


surrender  of  proprietary  rights, 
213,  footnote 

Pennsylvania:  laws,  95;  civil  list, 
194;  judiciary,  201;  immigration, 
246-247 ;  importation  of  slaves, 
247-248;  amends  laws,  273-274; 
bounty  lands  in  Indian  country, 
342-343  ;  see  Assembly,  Laws 

Petty,  William  Fitzmaurice:  see 
Shelburne,  Earl  of 

Phillips  vs.  Savage:  275 

Phips,  Sir  William  (gov.  of  Mass.) : 

210 

Pitt,  John:  58 

Pitt,  William:  50,  56 

Pollexfen,  John:  29 

Pontiac:  conspiracy,  347 

Popple,  Alured:  clerk  of  reports^  74; 
career,  79 

Portugal:  illegal  trade,  109,  foot 
note;  market  for  rice,  310 

Postage:  137-141 

Povey,  Thomas:  18 

Pownall,  John:  clerk  of  reports,  74; 
career,  77-78;  key  to  Halifax  in 
fluence,  78 

Pownall,  Thomas:  transferred  to  S. 
Car.,  152;  warned,  177-178 

Pratt,  Benjamin:  206 

Prior,  Matthew:  33 

Private  Bills:  instructions,  256-261; 
suspending  clause,  257;  regula 
tions,  258-259;  in  southern  colo 
nies,  259 ;  disallowance,  260-261 ; 
of  unusual  character,  260-261 

Privy  Council :  work,  14 ;  registering 
body,  89 ;  dissolved,  93 ;  regulates 
appeals  from  Board  of  Trade,  105- 
106;  relations  to  the  Board  of 
Trade,  128,  359.  Committees  of  — 
"Foreign  Plantations,"  18  ;  "Trade 
and  Plantations,"  19;  Board  of 
Trade  a  committee,  81;  for  hear 
ing  appeals,  83,  88;  names  de 
scribe  business,  84;  standing  or 
special,  84-85 ;  variety  of  names 


388       AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 


in  reign  of  William,  84-85 ;  one 
committee,  85  ;  cabinet  council,  85  ; 
personnel,  85-86;  common  names, 
86,  footnote;  during  reign  of 
Anne,  86-88 ;  general  plantation 
business,  88 ;  of  the  whole,  89 ; 
variety  of  names,  90;  descriptions 
misleading,  91 ;  personnel  during 
reign  of  George  I,  92 ;  any  three 
a  committee,  93 ;  has  various 
names,  94;  names  no  guide,  94-98  ; 
usage  settles  upon  names,  99 ; 
work  formal,  100;  names  descrip 
tive,  100;  coordinates  various  de 
partments,  101 ;  summary  of 
growth,  359-360 

Procedure:  before  Privy  Council, 
92;  appeals,  96-99;  reports  of 
Board  of  Trade,  101-102;  Board 
of  Trade  and  Privy  Council  com 
pared,  103-104;  appeals  from 
Board  of  Trade,  105-106;  dilatory 
motions,  104-108 ;  laws  affecting 
religion,  124;  private  bills,  257; 
disallowance  of  laws,  263-274;  be 
fore  committee  of  council,  270; 
boundary  disputes,  288-291 ;  per 
manent  defenses,  324-325 

Proclamation  of  1763 :  348-349 

Pulteney,  Daniel:  37 

QUAKERS:  232-233 

Quary,  Robert:  117 

Quit  rents:  in  Va.,  198;  laws  regu 
lating,  233-234;  danger  of  loss, 
288;  in  back  country,  327;  west 
ward  expansion  increases,  328 

RANDOLPH,  EDWARD:  agent  for  Board 
of  Trade,  117;  bill  against  charter 
colonies,  213,  footnote 

Rhode  Island:  trouble  with  Andros, 
19;  boundary  dispute,  95,  105,  290; 
illegal  trade,  109,  footnote ;  mili 
tary  commissions,  211;  admiralty 
courts,  235 


Rice:  310 
Rice,  George:  59 
Rigby,  Richard:  54 
Roberts,   John:  54 
Romer,  Colonel:  323 
Rye   (N.  Y.) :  288-289 

ST.  CHRISTOPHER  (island):  relief  of 
settlers,  121 ;  claims,  286 

St.  Lucia:  286 

Salaries:  Board  of  Trade,  22,  46, 
footnote,  48,  footnote,  68-69 1  g°v~ 
ernors,  183-195;  judiciary,  198- 
199,  202-203,  206 

Saltar,  Richard:  146 

Sandys,  Samuel:  55 

Schenectady:  323 

Secretary  of  State  for  Southern 
Department:  responsible  for  colo 
nial  business,  107;  relations  to 
Board  of  Trade,  108,  no,  120; 
controls  colonial  patronage,  142 

Seville,  Treaty  of:  74 

Sharpe,  Horatio:  struggle  with  Md. 
assembly,  157;  commander  of  mili 
tary  forces,  333 

Shelburne,  Earl  of:  55-56,  60 

Shipbuilding:  310-311 

Shipping:  307-308 

Shirley,  Wm:  correspondence  with 
Board  of  Trade,  136,  footnote ; 
clashes  with  Johnson,  341 

Shute,  Samuel  (gov.  of  Mass.) : 
quarrel  with  legislature,  91,  foot 
note;  describes  constitution,  167- 
169 

Slaves:  importation,  248-249;  as 
real  estate,  262 

Slave  trade:  247-249 

Smuggling:  between  Carolina  and 
Portugal,  109,  footnote ;  during 
Molasses  Act,  117-118,  footnote; 
Board  of  Trade  reports,  296-297; 
between  Carolina,  Curac.oa,  and  St. 
Thomas,  297;  suggestions  for 
checking,  297 ;  testimony  of  Ad- 


INDEX 


389 


miral  Knowles,   298,  footnote',   in 

time    of    war,    298-299 ;    flags    of 

truce,  298-299 
Society  for  Propagation  of   Gospel: 

338 

Somnas,  Peter:  91,  footnote 
South    Carolina:    boundary    dispute, 

290;    rice,    310;    crown    resumes, 

326-327;     immigration,     328-329; 

Indians,  337;  see  Assembly,  Laws 
Spotswood,  Alexander:  65-66 
Stair,  Earl  of:  215 
Stamp  Act:  193 
Stamp  Tax:  Bladen   suggests,   188 ; 

object,  216 

Stanhope,  Earl   of:   in 
Stay  Laws:  253 
Stepney,   George:  33 
Stone,  Andrew:  54 
Sunderland,    Charles,   Earl   of:   108, 

footnote 

Sunderland,  Robert,  Earl  of:  22 
Supplies   (military) :  321-323 
Surveyors:  349 
Sweden:  62,  footnote 

TALCOTT,  JOSEPH  (gov.  of  Conn.) : 
letters  to  Board  of  Trade,  134; 
letters  opened,  138 

Tariff:  249-250 

Taxes  (colonial)  :  on  paupers  and 
criminals,  246-247 ;  on  slaves,  247- 
248 ;  on  Quakers,  267-269 

Temporary  acts:  273 

Thomas,  Edward:  59 

Tiverton    (Mass.)  :  267-269 

Tobacco:  size  of  hogsheads,  240; 
production,  308 

Tobago   (island) -.286 

Tonnage   duties:  239 

Towns:  240 

Townshend,  Charles:  53,  55,  60 

Trade:  Board  of  Trade  controls,  24, 
62;  action  of  laws,  116-117;  Eng 
lish  laws,  149;  discriminating 
laws,  249-251;  colonial  market, 


301 ;  liberal  policy  favored,  301 ; 
conditions,  300-301 ;  in  wool,  302- 
306';  danger  of  losing,  303-304; 
increased,  328-332;  embargo,  335; 
see  Commerce,  Smuggling. 

Treasury,  Great  Britain:  support  for 
American  industries,  119;  claims 
from  colonies,  119;  relations  with 
Board  of  Trade,  119-121 

Treaties:  commercial,  62-65;  °f  Se 
ville,  74;  with  France,  286-287; 
with  Indians,  320-343 ;  of  Paris, 
347-348 

Troops:  323 

Turner,  Sir  Charles:  128,  footnote 

UNION:  difficulties,  209;  military 
210-211,  216-217;  powers  of  char 
ter  and  proprietary  colonies,  212- 
213;  Bellomont  commission,  211- 
212;  plan  of  1721,  214-216;  Al 
bany  plan,  217;  Board  of  Trade 
has  plan,  218-222;  fails,  222 

United  States:  63 

VAUGHN,  GEORGE:  in 

Veto,  Royal:  mentioned,  14;  in  Eng 
land,  225;  of  colonial  laws,  225- 
283;  has  two  meanings,  226-227; 
see  Laws 

Virginia:  ports,  116,  140;  tobacco 
shipping,  116,  footnote;  ministers' 
salaries,  125,  footnote',  mail  ser 
vice,  133;  appointment  of  gov 
ernor,  ,151;  civil  list,  194;  quit 
rents,  234;  importation  of  crimi 
nals,  245 ;  duties  on  slaves,  248 ; 
boundary  dispute,  290;  manufac 
ture  of  clothing,  305 ;  naval  stores, 
308;  military  supplies,  322;  de 
fense,  327 ;  western  settlements, 
327;  Ohio  Company  grant,  329; 
large  land  holding,  330;  see  As 
sembly,  Laws 

i  WAGER,  SIR  CHARLES:  166 


390       AMERICAN  COLONIAL  GOVERNMENT 


Walpole,  Robert:  40,  58,  358 

Wentworth,  Benning  (gov.,  of  N. 
H.):  correspondence,  67,  footnote; 
appointment,  142-143 

West,  Richard:  attorney  for  Board 
of  Trade,  75;  opinions  cited,  249- 
250,  268 

West,  William:  92,  footnote 

West  Indies:  plantations,  18;  mail 
service,  141 

Westward  Expansion:  Board  of 
Trade  favors,  326-332;  mountain 
passes,  327-328;  in  New  York, 
328;  Ohio  Company,  329;  west  of 
mountains,  330-331;  in  Ga.,  331- 
332;  limitation  to  policy,  331-332; 
summary,  355-356 

Westward  Movement:  Spotswood 
favors,  65,  footnote ;  multiplies 
civil  divisions,  254;  endangers  In 
dian  alliances,  342-343 

White  Pine  Bill:  314 


Wilks,  Francis:  105 

William  III:  20 

Winthrop  vs.  Lechmere:  102,  274- 
276 

Woods:  protection,  in,  314;  mast 
trees,  127;  surveyors,  143 

Wool:  303-305 

Woolens:  danger  of  colonial  manu 
facture,  241 ;  supply  fails  in 
America,  302 ;  export  to  colonies, 
302-303 ;  trade  fostered,  302-306 ; 
colonists  manufacture,  304-305 ; 
trade  endangered,  309 ;  diverting 
Americans  from  manufacture,  309- 
310 

Wraxall,  Peter:  199 

YORKE,  CHARLES:  report  on  judges' 
commissions,  205 ;  attorney  for 
Winthrop,  275 

Yorke,  John:  59 


VITA 

Oliver  Morton  Dickerson  was  born  in  Jasper  County,  Illinois, 
September  8,  1875.  He  received  his  early  education  in  the  public 
schools  of  that  county  and  in  the  Illinois  State  Normal  University 
at  Normal,  Illinois,  graduating  from  the  latter  in  1899.  The  fol 
lowing  two  years  he  was  principal  of  schools  at  Macon,  Illinois. 
In  the  autumn  of  1901  he  entered  the  University  of  Illinois,  where 
he  received  junior  standing  in  the  College  of  Literature  and  Arts, 
elected  history  as  his  major  subject,  and  graduated  with  the  degree 
of  Bachelor  of  Arts,  in  June,  1903.  He  was  appointed  to  a  Fel 
lowship  in  History  in  the  Graduate  School  of  the  University  of 
Illinois  for  the  ensuing  year,  taught  one  class  in  European  history, 
but  spent  most  of  his  time  in  graduate  study,  receiving  the  degree 
of  Master  of  Arts  in  1904.  In  May,  1904,  he  was  tendered  a 
Thayer  Scholarship  in  Harvard  University  and  spent  the  year  of 
1904-1905  in  the  Graduate  School  of  that  institution,  working 
under  the  special  direction  of  Professor  Edward  Channing.  The 
following  year  he  returned  to  the  University  of  Illinois  as  Fellow 
in  History,  continued  his  graduate  study  under  the  direction  of 
Professor  Evarts  B.  Greene,  and  was  granted  the  degree  of  Doctor 
of  Philosophy  in  history  in  June,  1906. 

The  summers  of  1903,  1905,  and  1906  he  taught  history  and 
government  in  the  Illinois  State  Normal  University,  and  a  part  of 
the  summer  of  1906  taught  history  in  the  University  of  Illinois. 
In  June,  1906,  he  was  appointed  head  of  the  Department  of  His 
tory  in  the  Western  Illinois  State  Normal  School  at  Macomb,  the 
position  which  he  now  holds.  In  1908  he  was  granted  a  leave  of 
absence  for  half  a  year  to  pursue  his  investigations  in  American 
history  abroad.  The  greater  portion  of  this  time  was  spent  in 
London,  England,  at  the  Public  Record  Office,  British  Museum, 
and  Privy  Council  Office. 

He  is  a  member  of  Gamma  Chapter,  Phi  Beta  Kappa,  the  Har 
vard  History  Club,  North  Central  History  Teachers'  Association, 
Illinois  Historical  Society,  Mississippi  Valley  Historical  Society, 
American  Political  Science  Association,  and  the  American  Histori 
cal  Association. 

Aside  from  several  short  addresses  he  has  published  in  the  Uni 
versity  of  Illinois  Studies,  "A  History  of  the  Illinois  Constitu 
tional  Convention  of  1862." 


DN  DEPARTMENT  642_3403 


- 


TOANPERIODI 
HOME  USE 


FEB 


8LC. 


41993 


FORM  NO.  DD 


6  40m,  6'76 


BL 


U.  C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


I*A  w- 


- 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


-• 


'   '.,     r><.. 

ry3^ 


